Talk:Gail Riplinger

I tried to edit this article to tone it down as much as humanly possible and still present GAR for what she is. She really is a conspiracy theorist, and openly talks about the conspiracy in her own book. She really is a home economics professor. Her scholarship is lampooned by anyone who bothers to review her books. The article is more neutral now, so I hope it passes the NPOV test - if not, tell me how to fix it. GAR is extremely important in the KJO world. Her book basically split the KJO world into two camps - the "textual" KJO who advocate a return to the Textus Receptus, and the "conspiracy" KJO who see modern Bibles as a way to undermine Christianity. Her book is more or less an epoch marker for this split, just as the Wilkinson book is an epoch marker for the "good" and "bad" Greek texts, an issue which never came up in earlier times. Scott1329m 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to try to do a complete rewrite of this article. At the moment most (if not all) of it comes directly from personal websites --DearPrudence 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the entire article; most of the information had to be removed because it was taken directly from two personal websites; they both contain the same information). I have also removed the image, as it is apparently copyrighted. --DearPrudence 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons" says, "contentious material - whether negative...or just questional - about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages,..." "Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link..." "Remove...contentious material...about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia including user and talk pages." "Self-published material may never be used in BLP unless written by the subject him or herself" "Materials available soley on partisan websites...if derogatory, should not be used at all" Gail Riplinger

I am Gail Riplinger. I am an academic (retired University professor). I just discovered the slanderous articles on this site. It appears that religious extremists, who find themselves unable to discuss the concrete linguistic aspects of my books, have taken to outright nonsense and slander. There are no sentences in the current or historical articles that contain a shread of accuracy (e.g. I have never taught Home Economics. This and other bald errors lead me to conclude that the article's author confused me with several other people (I would hate to think that anyone would make up things, but the venomous tenor of the article could lead to that conclusion). Such distortions are beneath the level of this fine and useful encyclopedia. The picture is copywritten and must be removed also.

The following is a brief vita which should replace the current articles immediately.

Gail Riplinger has B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, with graduate faculty status, the author taught seventeen different courses, served as department chair, and was selected for the Honor Society’s teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary. Riplinger is in several editions of Who’s Who.

Riplinger is also the author of numerous books on linguistics. Early on a serious investigation into the cognitive processes blossomed into a college textbook (accepted for publication by Prentice Hall). In 1993 the book, New Age Bible Versions, became an international best seller (over 200,000 in print). For it the author was honored with a Doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College. It has been used as a textbook in scores of colleges. Permission has been requested and granted to publish and translate the book into Korean, Japanese, Russian, Norwegian, Polish, and portions in several European languages. Three years teaching English as a second language provided the foundation for another textbook, The Language of the King James Bible.

The most recent textbook, In Awe of Thy Word, is a tome of 1,200 pages. It developed as a result of a lifelong study of language and cognitive behavior, that is, how the mind perceives, receives and retrieves information, particularly words and their semantic sense. Background coursework in acoustics and sound at Harvard University, a minor in history, and coursework in advertising (with research in semantics) merged to add an original and interesting perspective. Glowing reviews by Dr.John Hinton Ph.D., graduate of Harvard University, Dr. James Sightler, graduate of Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Polly Powell, retired professor from Clemson University, and others are available at http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/testimonies.html

Riplinger participated in a team which created an award winning hospital for cognitively impaired children, and was invitation by President Reagan’s Citizens Ambassador Program to join a team of U.S. doctors and architects to share research abroad. Riplinger was recently invited to join President Bush, the Vice-President, and Mrs.Elizabeth Dole and others for a meeting and dinner party. Debbieandjim 05:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up some points, but the article will need proper citations for any of the information you mentioned to be included. I will add the vital information you wrote as long as I can find references for it. --DearPrudence 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Debbie and Jim are but it appears they somehow believe they speak for Riplinger. It needs to be brought to the public's attention that they have totally wiped out portions of this page that contained documented information that Riplinger does not like to be known about her. Wikipedia needs to look into this. It seems like cheating to have removed information that you want kept secret even though someone has found out about it via public records. For Wikipedia's information, these public records were cited here as references for the information shared in this article but has apparently been wiped out by Debbie and Jim on behalf of Riplinger. No one here is making up anything or has mistaken Gail Anne Riplinger with being anyone else. How else do you think I was able to obtain her birthdate and place of birth? Nope, no "bald errors" here. If she keeps hiding this factual information we will continue to go public with it. How can this article be improved if those who don't like certain factual information being placed in it have it removed at every turn? I invite Debbie and Jim to either be honest and replace the information they inappropriately removed or it will be placed back in the article once again, with all references intact as they ORIGINALLY were. Thank you. Purpleparrot 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who rewrote the entire article. Before the rewrite, all of the information was taken directly from personal websites; they both contain the same information), which is a copyright violation. It was also unfairly slanderous - an encyclopaedia must remain neutral on a subject. --DearPrudence 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence, thank you for explaining. I will work on rewriting my portion of the article and resubmit it under the "Controversy" section. It will follow the format of an objective biography.Purpleparrot 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --DearPrudence 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that if it is Mrs. Riplinger that is now deleting necessary information from this biography that if she does not STOP it immediately, we will go public with more bio information. That is the correct birth year and birth name. We have documented proof. You can't just sweep it under the rug and make it go away by removing it from this bio. Believe it, Gail, we know about you, who you are. Purpleparrot 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpleparrot: I'm not taking sides here (because I myself don't know much about Riplinger), but you should probably provide a source for the information if it is a disputed point just to avoid debate. --DearPrudence 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Prudence and Mr. Scott McClare (aka: Purpleparrot, Scott, Ransom)

The rules already established for Wikipedia solve all problems. Please read them carefully. See the following articles: Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed..." "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." "Articles should rely on reliable, third party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..." "Anyone can create a website...for that reason,...personal websites...are largely not acceptable as sources..." "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." Biographies of Living Persons: "subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced materials." "Material available solely on partisan websites...should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including external links, unless written by or published by the subject of the article." "Subjects may provide material about themselves through...personal websites." "...public records...should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source" Their inclusion can be a "conjectural interpretation of a source" also. Neutral Point of View: "a balanced selection of sources"... "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." "...books...it is important indeed how some artists and some works have been received...by prominent experts..." Thank you DearPrudence for your kind advice. I have refered this article to the Living Persons Biographies Noticeboard, so edits are under close scrutiny. Please be scholarly, Scott; this is a well-respected encyclopedia, not a venue for libel. Gail Riplinger Linguisticsclass 05:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Linguisticsclass for cutting out the "birds" tongue (Rev.18:2), we DO know you- he does not!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.251.105 (talk • contribs)

Look, Gail, if that is really you...you need to go look at other "living" bios on Wikpedia. You just don't like certain information known about you because you like to keep secret since you know what might happen if your following found out about it. Public records are public records and they are easy to come by. In case you missed it somehow, when the court records were originally placed in this bio, they were listed with case numbers and the courts where they can be found. Those textbooks are yours and you now they are. And as for the smart-mouth Bible misquoter who posted in support of Riplinger, you need to get a registered name and stop hiding behind your unsigned IP number. You twist scripture from context just like Riplinger. No, you don't actually know anything about Riplinger because you obviously haven't bothered to check. You need read what God has to say about the liar's "tongue." Start in Proverbs.Purpleparrot

Dear the person purporting to be Gail Riplinger: I am "Mr. Scott McClare." On Wikipedia I go by the username "Ransom," so naturally I have no idea where you get the idea that I have contributed to this page, and I frankly resent the false accusation that I have in any way used Wikipedia as a "venue for libel," of you or anyone else. Indeed, my contributions page clearly indicates that until adding this paragraph to this talk page today, I have never contributed a word to this article. Assuming the dubious premise that you are the real Gail Riplinger, obviously your fact-checking online is about as rigorous as for your books. --Ransom 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence: Thank you. It is not my wish to debate this with Riplinger or anyone else. It's just that she seems to enjoy making this bio difficult because of information that she doesn't want made accessible to the public. When I originally posted my information, I included a source under References but DebbieandJim removed that information when they wiped out the page over a week ago. I could replace it once again but I am sure that Ms. Gail would see it removed yet again, making this bio a totaly waste of time. It seems more reasonable, at this point, to just boot this bio off Wikipedia since writing it seems nearly impossible. There are those of us out here who have done their homework concerning Riplinger. Instead of playing fair and being honest on her bio, she wants it her way and only her way, which has been quite evident the last few weeks. She has shared vague information about herself over the years without offering enough detail because then people could actually look her up and find out there are things about her that would cause controversy among some of the churches she has infiltrated. SHe says, "I was in an International Who's Who" but never WHICH one so people can verify what she says. She says, "I was invited by President Reagan as a citizen Ambassador to Russia and Finland" but never reveals when or what actual program this was with. Some of us have searched for this so-called Reagan Citizen Ambassador program and have found nothing of the sort. She says, "I authored six textbooks" but never gives the names of those textbooks so people can look at them if they wish. Would this have something to do with the fact that it would reveal a different last name? She gives enough vague detail to appear credible to people who don't bother to check her out and find out if she's trustworthy but not enough info to really check out what she says. Many of us have collated her book New Age Bible Versions alongside the original sources she pretends to quote from and have found gross misrepresentations of what was actually said. She alters the quotes of those she pretends to quote from in her book and makes them say things they never said. Her books are fraudulent and she knows they are because she wrote them that way. I can personally attest that her dishonest books and materials have caused serious splits inside churches where this kind of stuff ought not to be. If people's hands are going to be tied when it comes to writing the bio of Gail Riplinger (which seems to get the vote so far of most ridiculously controversial on Wikipedia) then why have it on here? If people are looking for an actual bio on Riplinger, they won't find it here, sad to say.Purpleparrot 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I have copies of all six of Riplinger's college textbooks and they have nothing to do with "linguistics," "history," or the "Bible." Looks like the cat's out of the bag, Gail. It would be better for you if you just tell the truth instead of fudging your Bio. Bible Defender.

"Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons" says, "contentious material - whether negative...or just questionable - about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages,..." "Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link..." "Remove...contentious material...about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia including user and talk pages." "Self-published material may never be used in BLP unless written by the subject him or herself..." "Materials available soley on partisan websites...if derogatory, should not be used at all..." "Editors should also be on the look out for a biased or malicious content about living persons." Gail Riplinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticsclass (talk • contribs)

Ms. Riplinger, the article is certainly not biassed at all. In fact, much of the article is already devoted to what could be considered positive information. As there is a great deal of controversy surrounding you and your work, the Controversy section must be used to explain the controversy. Praise does not belong in it. And the websites used for citations in the Controversy section are not personal websites, but extracts from your work that reference those who disagree with you. --DearPrudence 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The person claiming to be "Gail Riplinger" appears to be very confused. So far this article is on the rather positive side, as it favors her the way she wants it to. AMEN that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding Riplinger and there's a lot more that could be added along with concrete references to back it up. Riplinger makes herself controversial. She hides who she actually is behind the controversy. Controversy distracts from the real facts. Why not just remove the ridiculous bio and be done with it?? Tired of the Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.49 (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous, if we can't use personal 3rd party websites to verify information, for example, her Home Economics degree, then why is her personal website being used to site information? I'm removing all information that has no source other than her own web site (Which shouldn't be a viable source anyway.) And, DearPrudence, it is obvious that you are not nearly as unbiased as you claim, and should not have rewritten this article. Here is my evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gail_Riplinger&diff=155627727&oldid=146710308 You added the controversy section, then twisted it to point to Riplinger's own articles, rather than her critics! AzureWolf 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Divorced

Is Gail divorced? Does anybody know? 24.205.52.191 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I know about Gail's divorces. I found out by accessing public records. First, I started with her current marriage (to Michael D. Riplinger) license record, obtainable at the Clerk of Courts in Summit County, Ohio. On that marriage record it states that she was married two times before. On this record, the case number of the most recent divorce is listed. If you go to the courthouse in Ravenna, OH (Portage County) you can pull up this divorce record on your own. You can also get the courthouse where the marriage record for her second marriage can be found. On the second marriage record it lists the case number of her first divorce. On the marriage license for the second divorce it lists the case number for the first divorce. At this time, I am withholding the names of her first two husbands to protect their identity. One of them is deceased as of October 1999 and the other is still alive, meaning that, according to God's word, she is living in adultery. One note of special importance is that there were only two months between her second divorce and third (current)marriage. It seems that Gail has this pattern of lying that runs rather deep. Sadly, the twisting of other people's words and her slander against certain people in her books parallels the secrets she has kept hidden about her past. When the marriage information became public on the original Wikipedia article, she went to work quickly to have it totally expunged. Then she denied the information was true, even though it is very easy to prove it is true. Even more sadly, so many people who have trusted her to tell them the truth in her books and so forth have never bothered to obey the Bible they claim to believe, which tells them to "test the spirits" and "be as the Bereans" who tested everything that even Paul the Apostle told them to be sure that he was telling them the truth. It is not so much the problem that she has kept her questionable past hidden but that she has boldly denied it when it has been brought to the surface. Unfortunately, her personal testimony can be trusted as much as the misinformation found in her books. May God's truth and light set the deceieved free.69.179.60.71 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.60.71 (talk) 20:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

69.179.60.71, please do not let your religious views filter into your edits to this article or its talk page. This talk page often turns into a religious battleground, and as this is an encyclopaedia (which means that we must remain neutral), it's the last thing we want to happen. --DearPrudence 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did Gail Riplinger write this?

There are so many things wrong with this article. The biography doesn't even touch on many issues. First off, it says she has a degree, but does not list what she majored in. It then states "She was given an honorary doctorate for her book New Age Bible Versions" without citing a source. If I am correct, they are referring to the late Jack Hyles, who also awarded a doctorate to John R. Rice's horse. Then it gives a list of favorible reviews. A linguist, pediatrician, and English teacher are not experts in the topics that are discussed in New Age Bible Versions.

The controversy section is the worst of all. It says only one man supporting the KJV only movement criticized her book. I guess they forgot Dave Hunt, and the Trinitarian Bible Society. It is true that they do not believe the KJV is inspired as Riplinger does, but they do believe in the Textus Receptus being the perfect Greek text and the KJV being the most accurate English translation. It also does not mention the fact that many, if not most, Christians refer to her teaching as cultic. To top it off, the sources that are cited in this section are not to the critiques, but to her answer to the critiques. Clearly a Riplinger follower (if not her) wrote this article.

I also noticed that it says she is an advocate of the Textus Receptus or Traditional text. Two things are wrong with this statement. First, the Traditional text (better knows as the Majority text) is not the Textus Receptus, as there are over a 1000 diferences between the two, with no two manuscripts being exactly alike. Second, she does not support any Greek text because she does not believe we can study the Greek anymore. I believe she is a "English only" advocate. She has a chapter in her book 'New Age Bible Versions' titled 'Lucifer's Lexicons'. To my knowledge (I could be wrong on this statement), she claims that only the KJV translators had knowledge of the correct way to translate the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. That knowledge has since been gone.

This whole article is very inaccurate, and short. It does not even touch on many of the issues of Gail Riplinger. Nowhere in this article does it even mention her statment of divine authorship. That is right, she claims God wrote 'New Age Bible Versions', and she was just a secretary. Nowhere does it mention the gross distortions of quotations that can demonstrability be shown. Nowhere does it mention that many who hold a KJV only view, have distanced themselves from Riplinger, Ruckman, and the like. I suggest this article be rewritten by somebody who is not a follower of Riplinger. The person who keeps changing this article in favor of Riplinger and distorting facts should be be locked out. May the truth be known. I personally am a follower of Christ, and because of that, I have to follow the truth. I agree with some statements above. This article should be void of any religous attack, but also should expose many of the issues around Riplinger. RyanDaniel 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ryan. It appears that Riplinger did write the article since she has supposedly left personaly comments here--or someone did it for her. It is clear that the article is meant to sugar-coat the real facts and the serious controversy that surrounds Riplinger. She creates controversy and then attempts to dodge the conflict that it creates. This article seriously needs to be rewritten. The first author, Scott (see his first note at the very top of this Talk page), had written an excellent and true to the facts article, which was wiped out by some Riplinger followers. The article has not been right since. There are a lot of people out here who know about the damage caused in churches by Riplinger. It is nearly impossible to escape religion with this subject because everything Riplinger has done to make herself public is surrounded by religion. Obviously, the article should be as neutral as possible but this talk page is a different situation. Just by the witnesses on this page, this article could be rewritten to more correctly reflect Riplinger and the facts but there are those who wish to protect her by continuing to cause trouble on this site. I vote as some others have, that this article should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is a waste of space and will never reflect the true story and gives a bad taste to the good reputation Wikipeda is trying to create.204.63.207.111 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The article was a complete copy-violation of a very anti-Riplinger website and was very POV, so I had to wipe it all out and rewrite it as best I could, but Riplinger (or the user who claims to be her) denies new facts that are added to the article and has repeatedly added praise to the Controversy section. The article needs to be expanded to show what a controversial figure she is; as it is now, it is almost impossible to get any idea of how people have reacted to her ideas. --DearPrudence 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many who have done their homework on Gail Anne Riplinger, MANY. The problem here with this article, and with her, is that she does not want the "icky" facts known. She wants only the pretty stuff to show. Her opinion of herself really doesn't count; it is the public's opinion that matters because it is the public that she has afffected. She thinks she can create controversy, slam others, and then have it all her way, like one of the previous posters said: "She creates controversy and then attempts to dodge the conflict" created. If Riplinger, or whoever it is posting for her, is not locked out, this article will NEVER be properly written. It has no chance and is a waste of space on Wikipedia. It's almost laughable. Ryan Daniel is accurate in what he wrote. I have discovered the same things he and others have. We are witnesses to the truth of the matter at hand. Ryan put my exact thoughts into words. Without proper control of those who abuse this site, how will this article ever reflect the truth?72.171.0.148 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.148 (talk) 12:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

To let everyone know, I am not attacking Gail Riplinger. I am just attacking falsehood. Anyone reading this article does not even get a fraction of the real issues and truth about Gail Riplinger. In my opinion, she has done harm to the cause of Christ. The article should be written from an unbiased editor, with all of the information cited. If you stick to that criteria, I have no doubt that truth will be known, and Gail will be exposed. I am never for personal attacks, but I am for defending the truth. My personal opinion of her work as an enemy of true Christian faith has nothing to do with this article. The falsehood and slander that flows through her work . . does. God bless you guys. RyanDaniel 11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately it seems to be difficult to sort through the real facts and the fabricated ones; I doubt all negative points people about Riplinger are true, but she (that is, LinguisticsClass) denies them all. It's hard to find an unbiased source to use for this article as almost every website mentioning her is either extremely pro-Riplinger or extremely anti-Riplinger, so everyone should remain sceptical whilst looking for references. --DearPrudence 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. The great thing about her book 'New Age Bible Versions' is that she cites her sources. That gives you the ability to check for yourself whether she is misleading or slandering. I for one think that if her divorces can be verified, then it should be noted. She has reached a semi-celebrity status, and if true, should be known. You can go through many articles of celebrities and get the good, the bad, and the ugly . . . because it's true. One main thing is that the article as is right now is a joke, and does not even come close to representing anything that has to do with the many issues of Gail Riplinger. We should have information about her early life, her College history, etc. If an article is going to be about a person it should meet the same qualities as many of the other articles. This article not only misrepresents views and facts. It also is incredibly silent on many issues. The article needs to be revised, and should represent facts that can be verified, not POVs. RyanDaniel 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All true. As it is now, this article is nothing more than what Riplinger writes about herself in the bio found on her own web site: www.avpublications.com. The truth is, there is more to her than she wants to have known, so of course she is going to disagree with ALL of it. Unless she writes what she wants to be known, nothing else will be written. There are others who can write more about her with concrete sources and references to back them up, but their work will probably continue to be sabotaged on here. The thing is, when someone has something they want to hide about themselves, they are going to be as diligent as possible in fighting it and having it removed so the public won't see it. What this article needs is a person who has actually done in depth research into Riplinger and who has compared the claims in her books with the actual sources she cites in them.67.142.130.44 17:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)