Talk:Ray Comfort/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversial statements

More should be mentioned of Ray's controversial statements. On one his web videos , one where he's anoying people at a courthouse he says: "Solider's in Iraq are dying for you.", well i know one thing they are not dying for this guy to use them to make money.

Hi! Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Re: what Comfort says, 1) How exactly are they making money?; 2) If you can find a source which refutes his "controversial statements," then by all means put it in! Be sure to read and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:CITE. Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you, but I've seen that video. People were not annoyed and he didn't even say that soldiers were dying for us. He said they were fighting for freedom which we all enjoy here in America. I don't agree with him, but he was also deceived as many Americans and foreigner living here were. So, that is a non issue. The issue he is talking about pertain to eternal issues not temporal things such as politics. The question is are you going to Heaven or Hell after you die? Dele

"The question is are you going to Heaven or Hell after you die?" this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-like page, not a place to proselytize. The article lists only positive (and I use the word loosely) aspects of Comfort's works without even mentionning that his claims are considered poor at best by experts. If that's not bias, I don't know what is. I agree with the original statement, and it hasn't been appropriately addressed at all here. Any science textbook should provide counter-arguments if sources are required, though common sense would be enough for most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.203.45 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Open Air preaching

I'm puzzled at the statement that Ray Comfort started open-air preaching in the early 1980s. I lived in Christchurch from 1974 till January 1979, and heard him preaching in Cathedral Square a number of times during that period. Cheers Neil Copeland

I'm not sure. Obviously, I wouldn't discount what you saw. Also, it's necessary to take into account that according to Out of the Comfort Zone and Miracle in the Making, he did not "discover" the principle of using the Law until around 1981, so that may be what that's referring to (doing O/A with the law). IIRC, I remember hearing or reading him say that he tried it just after he became a Christian in the 70s, but he stopped for a while. MessengerAtLWU 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Neil, this is an update. I remember now reading in Out of the Comfort Zone that in face he did OA in the 70s, even though it was before he started using the law, so I'll update the article to reflect that. --MessengerAtLWU 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this "Article" so long?

World Book Encyclopedia, for those pastors that do get into their work, reseve only a brief one paragraph short article for them. Why is this article so long and so detailed. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting evangalist.Magnum Serpentine 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should censor evangelists? How is that objective? - Soga

I think there's a fair bit of a divide between 'promoting' and 'censoring'. It's not censoring if you report the facts about someone as they are. This article makes no real mention of how uneducated and profoundly silly some of Comfort's claims have been, so it looks to be biased, and it -is- a long article expounding the positive side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.203.45 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should censor articles that does not satisfy the notability guideline wether they are evangelists or not. That is objective. bleauah 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Pope Tract

Honestly, what controversy is there about the Pope tract? Outside of here, I've not heard of anything online in blogs or the news specifically about this tract as I have about, for example, Pat Robertson's antics. I don't want to offend anyone, but from where I'm sitting, this paragraph is merely a way for someone to vent about something they don't like, and so I've deleted it yet again. Also, 208.57.160.201, your "compromise" makes very little sense; the quote from their newsletter says nothing about any possible controversy, but merely that it would take some time for them to have the tract ready to be purchased. That could mean any number of things: that it had been designed but not sent to the printer yet, that there was some sort of delay in getting it shipping in time for the newsletter, or that they had some, but not enough to fully meet demand. MessengerAtLWU 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sharing" Faith?

If you watch only ten minutes of the video, you can see that the point of it all is to teach clever tactics to convert people to evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. Consequently, I have changed "share" to "promote." I think that's a better description of what they do, and it more than does justice to NPOV.

Hey! First, plase sign your name with "--~~~~". Second, which video are you talking about? Third, I'm not sure what the difference is between "share" and "promote." Both seem fairly NPOV. --MessengerAtLWU 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, promote doesn't just mean evangelism though, it could mean something like bring all Christians together to do something important. Sharing the faith, however, really is evangelism. Homestarmy 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You share something with someone who is interested in it. I don't think the "heathen savages" in the New World were inherently drawn to Christianity. They had it forced upon them by the evagelicals of that historical era.

Now fast forward to the 21st century. Take a look at The Way of the Master videos. Comfort displays techniques to convert people, mostly by using shame and fear. Through his narrow interpretation of the 10 commandments, we're all Adulterers if we've ever looked at another person and felt a natural, physical attraction to them...we're all Thieves if we've ever stolen anything at all, even when we were innocent young children...we're all Liars if we've ever made any kind of misstatement.

This is not sharing. This is persuasion.

I must of missed the part in the videos where Ray brings out the torture rack and Inqusition officials. Did they forget to mail me an episode? And if you really have looked at the episodes and thought about it, or really read the Bible, (Especially the first parts of Matthew), you'd find those standards were presented first by Jesus Christ, so elaborating in his particular beliefs would require notation of how they align with the Bible since, you know, he kind of is getting them out of there. Which is fine with me, I mean, the more the Bible is mentioned the better in my opinion. Homestarmy 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ckav and Homestarmy, as much as I'd love to get into this debate, it is not germane to the discussion. The question is, "Is 'share' an appropriate word?" Wiktionary says that to share is "to give part of what one has to somebody else to use or consume." That is precisely what Comfort does. "Persuasion" is also an appropriate word, but it has a negative connotation. "Share" does not. Also Ckav, please sign your posts in talk pages with --~~~~. Thanks! --MessengerAtLWU 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that persuade has negative connotations, it really doesn't matter though. I think it should be left as share too. -AlexJohnc3 11:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The word “persuade” does not always carry a negative connotation but it can. And in this context it does. When one hears the word “persuade” in terms of religious evangelism it brings forth connotations of one person forcing his or her beliefs upon another. Whereas, the word “share” brings forth the connotative picture of a dialog which is more in keeping with what Mr. Comfort does. --Neovita 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we just use the word advocate instead? --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Advocate doesn't necessarily mean to evangelize either as much as share, one can advocate Christianity without actually asking someone to become a Christian, but rather to get someone to be more sympathetic to it or something like that, and that's not really the primary goal of what Ray is going for. Besides, this discussion is almost a year old, why restart it now? Homestarmy 02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw a number of Atheists in my school selling T-shirts and talking to people trying to convert them to Atheism. I respected they and their opinion and I went to talk to them about my views too. Share faith persuade people whatever the term. He is doing it because he cares about what he believe would happen to people after death. I'd rather have him inform people about his opinion, than not saying a thing.

What does this have to do with anything? Also, the term would be deconvert, not convert because they would be trying to deconvert people from their religions. You can't convert to a lack of a belief, but you can deconvert from a religious belief system. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a lack of belief; it is a belief in the lack of God or gods. I could call Christianity a lack of belief in naturalism, but that doesn't do much to define it. -Soga

Actually...that is what Atheism mean...literally without-God. In the modern context, it means lack of belief in religious systems. And Christianity is most definitely not a lack of belief is naturalism--most scientists are Christian (at least in the US)216.49.214.3 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"... when you say "most scientists are christian" it would be more precise to say that in the US the majority of scientists have a belief in a god or gods. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

I have A Modest Proposal: After having been told again and again to sign posts with ~~~~, one or more posters keeps ignoring said advice. I propose simply deleting all such posts until the poster(s) get a clue. (Note to the humor impaired: follow the A Modest Proposal link before flaming.) --67.150.173.207 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC) <-- That's what a signature generated with ~~~~ looks like, moron.

External Links

Why can we not include these external links:

Skull and Crossbones Award - Sponsored by the Evangelica Out Reach Organization

Ray Comfort’s True and False Conversion and Law-Preaching Evangelism Examined

Must all external links be NPOV? Isn't Ray Comfort an evangelica preacher? Should others not read Evangelical reviews?

I'd have to say on the second one its probably this paragraph:

"Folks, it is not that Ray Comfort is confused, but his theology is poisoned by eternal security. Because it is fatally flawed, it has resulted in these irreconcilable contradictions and deadly errors. The sooner we realize this the better it will be for multitudes of people here and the kingdom of God in eternity. Eternal security is not the message of the Bible but instead a doctrine of demons designed to reclaim precious souls for Satan that once found salvation through the Lord Jesus and his precious blood."

That's downright hostile. Also, the article itself is, well, shoddy, I could go through it point by point and address the errors he's making and provide the context of the times to show why Jesus did what He did rather than what this person hopes that He did if you like. Plus, who are these people/person? Do they pass notability? Homestarmy 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in many episodes or radio broadcasts Ray often talks in-depth about issues concerning backsliding, so that crossbones award for creating backsliders hardly applies concidering all the stuff his ministry is always doing about backsliders in the church. Homestarmy 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

remove the banana conversion lie...

Theres is an extremely antagonistic character who is determined to keep that lie about Ray Comfort converting becasue of a banana, no doubt a fan of Hell bound alee show. This is going to be monitored regularly...

Okay, who is this person? Have you talked to him or her about it? Having heard Comfort give his testimony, I don't think that was the key reason behind his conversion; the last straw that I've heard him more often is Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:28 that lust is just as wrong as adultery. Therefore, I've erased that portion of the sentence, and moved the rest elsewhere in the document, as the whole thing itself is relevant. If someone comes back to change it, we'll deal with it.

Who is monitoring it? You said on my talk page that LW is. Well, in the world of Wikipedia, and with all due respect to them (I admire their ministry greatly), that doesn't matter. Several editors watch this page, and if someone messes stuff up, we'll fix it. That's what the wiki community is about.

Also, sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah bannana is not the reason he converted its just a lie he uses to trry and prove his imaginary friend is real.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Ministry

Removed: "Additionally, by the same logic, since the penis fits well into the hand, male masterbation is designed to happen by God, despite it being quite taboo in evangelist circles." from the paragraph which talks about the banana being the atheists nightmare. I thought this was biased and completely inappropriate. Itsadiel 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism, it seems an edit by Smackbot hid it from recent changes, thanks for removing it. Homestarmy 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

POV discovered and removed

A line which called Comfort's understanding of a banana "ignorant" and said that bananas are actually human created. No citation was added, so until one is, I have removed this sentence as it does not belong in this article. Also, there was a link to a video of Comfort describing why the banana is proof of a god, with quotations calling the video funny. The motives behind posting this video, as well as the little remark to follow the link are clearly POV. Karatenerd 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! While I agree the motive may have been POV, as someone who supports Comfort, I must say that the video of him essentially renouncing one of the biggest arguments in his case for creationism would probably be good for either here or The Way of the Master#Criticisms. If we just gut everything that goes against them, then we are guilty of POV ourselves. There must be some semblence of a balance. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a section on the banana, including a picture of a wild banana that is not the product of breeding selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana It has big, tough seeds. Link to that.Jive Dadson 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with that atleast a bananna is real unlike imaginary friends in the sky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Might want to point out experts 99.9% of biologists with PhDs many of who have the same god, accept evolution. Jist because he is stupid or lies doenst change the truth!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed the sentence saying Comfort is not ecumenical even in the narrowest sense

For a person to be 'ecumenical in the narrow sense of the word' would surely mean that he or she is accepting of different variations of the same religious group, but not accepting of all religious groups. The article goes on to say Comfort has been involved with churches in most denominations, and that being the case, 'ecumenical in the narrow sense of the word' would be a good descriptor for him. NZUlysses 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Someone explain to me. Why does this kook deserve a Wikipedia page?

WP:NOTABILITY. Homestarmy 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does Darwin deserve a Wikipedia page? -Soga

Darwin was a historically significant scientist, regardless of your opinion of his discoveries. Ray Comfort's significance is vastly more dubious by comparison. Regardless, I say the article should stay, as long as it has a factual and balanced account of what he does, how he does it, and what the controversies are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryddragyn (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

He has written many books, that's notable -davidsmind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmind (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RRS debate information

Someone continues to delete information on the debate, namely that Comfort invoked faith despite agreeing not to beforehand. This is readily apparent in the video, which is widely available. This isn't POV - this is fact. If someone wants to step in constructively try to add balance to the interpretation, that would GREAT. But deleting the info altogether without giving a reason is not! I also suspect it's a violation of wikipedia policy.Ryddragyn 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube videos (and videos from other video websites) are generally considered very undesirable as references, try finding a reliable source that comments on the video, rather than trying to link to the video itself. Homestarmy 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate/event of question was recorded and televised nationally, so it should be citable as a primary source. If anyone finds an uncut version that is permalinked and not on Youtube, that would be a a big help for the article.Ryddragyn 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But was it recorded for use in the Public Domain (or under a license which would allow free use) by one of the stations who recorded it? This is often a problem with YouTube videos, if it was recorded straight off of, say, CNN or whatever, they may not of released copyright on the footage they filmed. Homestarmy 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your attack on Ray Comfort is obvious & biased. Saying that "Sapient" received many standing ovations w/o adding that it was of course only the athiests in the audience that participated in the ovation is mis-leading. Also, as Cameron stated, this was not a debate to suggest that someone should be declared a winner so I think the line about "Although there was no clear winner..." is stupid.

The original lead in was "No winner was declared", which is neutral, IMHO, so it should stay. Modifications to the ovations portion is fine by me. Omitting references to their use of the bible and faith as scientific arguments, however, was a major feature of the debate, which frustrated not only RRS but the moderators as well. Ryddragyn 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the reference given for the supposed highlights of the debate, and I don't see anything in there about the article affirming the idea that Cameron and Comfort refused to respond to certain points of the opposition, or that they were repeatedly referencing the Ten Commandments, which actually seemed like a useless thing for the article to say until I just added in Cameron's response in a WOTM radio podcast. Homestarmy 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk here, but I read throught the links from source [13], and couldn't find any mention of Ray "refusing to respond to many RRS counterarguments." -- It seems like a small POV add-in, in the sense that it implies that either a.) Ray ignored the opponent in the debate (which seems incorrect based on the rest of the article) or b.) that Ray openly refused to deal with the RRS's comments (also seems incorrect). For the moment, I'm choosing to remove that part of that sentence, until some sort of more-extensive/less-POV-ish sourcing/article-writing can be done -- to clarify, find some source that neutrally claims that Ray Comfort "refused to respond..." and I'm all for including the statement; until that point, it's biased. 74.134.228.189 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of small POV add-in's, here's another one - "He was born Jewish (through his mother.)" Well since, by universal acclamation, that IS what makes you Jewish, it's inclusion seemed to be a way to cheap shot the man's Jewishness. And minimizing the Jewishness of a Jew who believes in Christ is a common technique engaged in by resentful non-Christ-believing Jews. I took out the 'through his mother' part as it adds/subtracts ZERO from the man's bio.

Evidence Bible

I don't see anything about Comfort's work on the Evidence Bible (http://www.evidencebible.com). It might not need much - maybe just something in the books section?

Sledge84 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Banana argument

Didn't the article used to mention that he conceded the banana argument on an interview once? I know I read that somewhere, but it's not here now. 153.42.168.174 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a bit of a fight over it, I know questions of notability got flung around, but I wasn't paying too much attention to the result. Homestarmy 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Banana is great it shows how he uses a banana (Created by man) as proof of god, what better way to shoot himself in the foot!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Banana's were created by man out of thin nothing? P.S. - I do know that certain types of bananas were manipulated by man, but men did not invent the first banana.Invmog (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, man did not (of course)invent the first banana, but bananas as we know them today are the result of human controlled selective breeding, and modern bananas are the bananas he used for his argument.79.72.180.18 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

External links to more information

This page deals with Ray Comfort and his WOTM ministry. The article contains direct links to his WOTM ministry website. Because these external links to sites supporting his views are allowed, the page must also offer external links to sites providing contrary views. To not allow contrary links goes against the spirit of Wikipedia (it is also known as "whitewashing"). Please do not continuously delete the link (also known as an "edit war").

Continued whitewashing of this page is not acceptable and it will lead to Wikipedia dispute resolution and may lead to the article being placed under full protection.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued attempts to force a blog/forum/whatever it is of no particular notability into this article might also result in this article being fully protected. But please, fully protecting an article because of one external link? That's a total over-reaction. If you'd care to join the discussion which has already taken place on the main Way of the Master talk page, then perhaps you'd see that there are legitimate concerns over the mention of the WOTM watchdog website in any articles related to The Way of the Master. Homestarmy 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since September 23, 2007, there have been 7 seperate attempts to remove the link to a website critical of the subject of this Wikipedia entry. This is either an unknowning violation of the terms of Wikipedia, or a deliberate attempt at vandalism. We will repost the single disputed link within the next 2 days, and if the site is vandalised again, we will formally request mediation followed by arbitration. Whatever your personal disagreements are with the message being presented by the website in question, they do not provide legitimate reasons to censor the site. Wikipedia must remain open to ALL ideas. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is and should forever be in the business of censoring content that actually lowers the quality of its articles. How can our readers take us seriously when the external links section, which is designed to give readers the option of viewing helpful websites related to the topic, contains links to websites of no particular notability or merit? The External Links guideline is meant to standaridize a certain level of quality in external links sections, and it specifically states that blogs do not belong in external links sections, unless they are the subject of the article or managed by the subject of the article and things like that. Some non-notable, anonymous blogspot.com website does not satisfy the External Links guideline, and I have yet to see a single compelling reason why there should be an exception in this case. Merely being open to "ALL" ideas is not a good exception, and applied Wiki-wide, would quickly turn Wikipedia into GarbageDumpPedia, the free linkfarm that anyone can spam.

Furthermore, a mediation would be quite pointless, the obvious violation of Wikipedia policy going on here isn't exactly difficult to surmise, and there's no need for mediation. I would not accept it if a request was filed, and having participants in a dispute all agree to a mediation request is mandatory. Homestarmy 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A medcab case has been opened, but from what I've seen of the external link, there isn't much to mediate. If the external link was to a report / essay / paper that contained detailed criticism of Ray Comfort then it could possibly be included. However, a tabloid style blog isn't acceptable. Addhoc 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray Comfort's Blog

I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to include Ray Comfort's Blog at http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ into this article, since it is his own blog. I thought I might bring it up here first rather than go through a pointless revert-war over it. Thanks. SSobregon88 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be precedent for it in WP:EL, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject", though i'm not quite sure what "official" entails. Homestarmy 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Allright then, if no one disapproves, I'm going to add his Blog to the external links SSobregon88 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ray Comfort is a Fundamentalist Christian

Ray Comfort is a Fundamentalist Christian

Anyone against stating this fact?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good no objection to the truth being stated, so I have added it with a reference from his website!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with that is that the link provided doesn't back up your assertion. _Gb^T/c 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've heard on of his "sermons". The guy said, and I quote: "Until you make them understand they live as sinners, why would gays, Jews or Muslims accept the salvation you offer them?". I'd call that an extreme fundamentalist. I mean, sure, he's not Hitler, but he ain't no Mother Therese either. Wouldn't you consider severe religious intolerance as being fundamentalist?

Moonshadow Rogue (talk), 5 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Bananas

I came to this article to find out what the deal was with bananas. There doesn't seem to be any mention of bananas on the article at all now.

As I couldn't find an explanation on Wikipedia I had to look elsewhere. I found it in Comfort's "God Doesn't Believe In Atheists" (1993, reprinted as recently as 2006) in which he titles an entire chapter on the argument from design "Banana in Hand", and argues that bananas must have had a designer (they did, humans who cultivated modern bananas by artificial selection from their evolved plantain ancestors) and that the designer must be God. He describes the banana as "the atheist's nightmare". The significance of this item is that it was such a patently ridiculous argument that it's been lampooned repeatedly down the years and Comfort himself has stopped using it, although of course his critics haven't stopped reminding him of it, and his phrase "the atheist's nightmare" has come to haunt him. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be something about his banana claim since it is so widely criticized on the internet. Feerzeey (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly surprised not to see the banana argument mentioned here. It seems incredibly POV to leave out such a well-known part of the subject's history just because it's potentially embarrassing. (I assume that's why it's left out). Having looked at Comfort's blog, I really don't think he'd even object to it being here. He openly welcomes debate and parody and mentions the banana incident often. So who is against it being included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.247.69 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it keeps getting removed. It does need to be there, but it will ultimately just cause an edit war. Oddly if reference to the dessert banana#cultivation gets removed, the bit that says 'where Comfort argued that the banana's attributes are evidence for creationism' gets left in. Are we allowed to say that wikipedia's own article discredits Ray's arguments? Are we allowed to have an article where a prominent mistake, in the name of education, by a public figure is openly listed as such? This is something that needs consensus. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not our job to "form a consensus" that Evolution is correct, that Creationism is false, etc., we must always keep a neutral point of view. I'm not opposed to adding, for example, what The New York Times said about Comfort's belief. But to say, "Comfort believes x, and that is incorrect", is entirely POV and should not be in the article. TheAE talk/sign 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If he actually does believe it and it actually is incorrect, it's not POV but demonstrable fact. Citation would of course be needed. If it's only our opinion that he believes it, then it's still POV. Ancient people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. They were simply wrong. It is not a POV issue. If it is, we can't write anything at all on Wikipedia that contradicts Conservapedia, because that would be POV. You're right though that it's not our job to form a consensus on evolution. Our consensus would be irrelevant to evolution. It's the job of biologists and geologists and chemists and archaeologists to form a consensus, and it's already done. All we have to do is cite them. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we need to form consensus on whether evolution is correct, evolution in its broadest sense isn't strictly applicable to the dessert banana in that it is a domesticated form. Artifical selection would be applicable. I meant a consensus on whether someone saying the dessert banana was created by god can be described as a mistake. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The banana should be added.--68.184.246.3 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ray "Banana Man"[1] Comfort definitely gained some notoriety[2] with his banana argement, at least in the blogosphere. The rumors that he retracted the argument are disputed[3], instead he seems to blame everybody else for misunderstanding it[4]; His explanation is that he was only joking[5] (he got me fooled, that's for sure). - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is nothing more than propaganda. This guy is barely known the page is a big advertising for his books and tv shows. Where is the "criticism" section. His controversials statements ? He's trying to hide the truth, just like he does on his blog where the comments are censored.Parkko) 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. There should be a "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section, at the very least, and the banana nonsense should be in it. Mr. Comfort is a round human being, and in a real encyclopedia he should not be held up as a caricature for either side of a political/religious debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.173.98 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, Criticism sections shouldn't be in an article. I'm not sure about the "banana" thing. TheAE talk/sign 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does seem rather a muted article - no mention of the banana argument is made at all, and that is one area of notability for Comfort for me. I'm not interested in an edit war though, as this article looks fairly strongly patrolled by people on his side. At least there is a talk page. One thing I would say more strongly is that Comfort is known for his creationist position in general, and this is not covered well by the article, which discusses his theological position in some detail from a theological position, but not from the view of a non-theologist. From the article he is just another Christian preacher. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Debate with Thunderf00t

It's been done now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.209.151 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

References

It looks like the references section got blanked out, and when I tried to add its contents back in, I discovered that one of the refs is spam filtered, and so the edit was blocked. Someone who cares more should follow up on this, so that the citations are visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.198.84 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this. "Examiner.com" was blacklisted, and simply had to be removed. {{reflist}} is back as well. :) American Eagle (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Current Picture

Say, does anyone own a better picture of Ray, or know of where we could get a free one? The current one lacks quality.Invmog (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? It's a sharp, full-face image - just right for a biographical article. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; the picture is OK, but in regards to lighting and everything it would be better if we had a higher quality one available. It just looks like someone took the picture with a flash standing just a few feet in front of his face which makes Comfort and his clothes glow bright and the background come out real dark. It doesn't have to b changed but it would be an improvement. Invmog (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

if the face is OK then that's the main thing. perhaps you could put out an appeal at a couple of wikiprojects for a better one? Mind you, I recall Joss Stone being illustrated with a blurred picture taken on a phone at one of her concerts, so we should think ourselves lucky perhaps.

Category:American evangelicals

Is he American? He lives in California but is he a US citizen? If not, we can lose this category. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people are considered American even they are not US citizens, but you're right; we might not need that category. Invmog (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He lives in America, and was just born in New Zealand. He's an American. :) American Eagle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You can be American just by living in America? Someone should tell the birthers. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that one must currently be a citizen of the US to be considered "American". I doubt it... American Eagle (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem - two different definitions of American: mine legalistic, yours more general. So, how does this affect the category, and is it worth the discussion? Totnesmartin (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh... I don't really care one way or another. :) He lives in America, has for years, and is most likely an American citizen, so I'll support leaving it as is. American Eagle (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... it's only a category. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. We'll keep it as is. Although, if you find some solid information that he really isn't an American citizen, or he is moving back to New Zealand, etc., feel free to reopen this discussion, Totnes. :) God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The NCSE's Flier and Bookmarks

Why is it notable to mention that the National Center for Science Education, which is pretty obscure judging by its Wikipedia article, handed out a bunch of fliers and book marks, or more specifically, why should it be mentioned in Comfort's article when it is not even in the NCSE's very own article? Invmog (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I moved the date of birth (December 5, 1949) and mention of his being born in New Zealand here from the article until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of publications

The section "Publications", a listing of Comfort's publications, seems extraordinarily long. I think that we should trim this down if possible. Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, so should we only keep notable ones? Invmog (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of these publications are tracts. I would agree that his significant writings should be mentioned, but I don't see how the inclusion of every religious pamphlet or tract he's ever put out makes this a better article. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.97.118.32, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} It should probably be mentioned somewhere that this man is homophobic and sexist. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWBC0AnAAT0&feature=channel 4minutes 40 to 5 minutes.

7people (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We should be very careful about making such negative claims in a biography of a living person, and it would have to be based on a very solid source - an intepretation of a Youtube video probably doesn't cut it. Are there any better sources which make it explicit? Or could the wording be toned down a bit? IE. "Comfort has suggested that..." bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty solid source, its an unedited video from CBN (a network that Ray Comfort supports) and the Youtube video linked to is posted by Ray Comfort's own official Youtube account. Where he says "the bible is just fairy tales, and because of that I believe in a woman's right to choose, I believe in gay marriage"

It's very obvious that hes referring to those things being wrong. 7people (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That being pro-life makes one a "sexist" and being against gay marriage makes one "homophobic" is an interpretation, and not a fact. There are many women, for example, who are pro-life. Does that mean they're "sexist" as well? If you want to document his stated positions on said issues, then you'll have to provide sources in which he does so explicitly, and without the biased value judgments. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As Nightscream points out, WP:BLP requires very strong sources for such negative claims. Our interpretation will never be acceptable. Heck, even if this wasn't a BLP issue, making that type of analysis is original research. Furthermore, I'd like to note that WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, including this one, so unless 7people can provide reliable sources making this claim, this line of discussion should be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life?

I would like to remove this section entirely. It contains only a quote from Comfort himself. It's not verifiable and it's not especially informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theowarner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

While I don't like excessive personal info, this seems fine to me. It clearly states that this is only his claim (i.e., it's not a verified fact), and it seems to be part of his "narrative". I personally think it should stay, but I'm certainly open to others' input. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it because it was not sourced per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS. The citation link provided was to a Living Waters page of multiple media files, without the one in question specified. This is not an appropriate citation. If, however, there is indeed a file on that page that someone can specify that supports this, it can be re-added, with the right citation. Nightscream (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that Mr. Comfort's personal information be verified and not be reported by Mr. Comfort himself, as it is here (or was.) I think it's reasonable to exclude information that is issued as an act of public relations. Theowarner (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If the material is excessively self-promotional or self-aggrandizing (for example, if he emphasized having a 4.0 GPA, listed awards he won like magna cum laude, etc.), but merely stating basic personal info, like where one went to school, is not public relations, nor a COI matter. I'd have no problem with it if it were sourced. Only if it went beyond casual info would a more independent or secondary source need to be emphasized. Nightscream (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.169.177.161, 27 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The caption for the photo of Richard Dawkins states: "Dawkins ridiculing a copy of Comfort's introduction to The Origin of the Species 150th Anniversary Edition." This is not the correct title of the book, and is frequently misstated. The correct (abbreviated) title is: The Origin of Species. No "the." This is NOT a book about the human species specifically. 76.169.177.161 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Our article indicates its "On the...", so I added "on" at the beginning, in addition to removing the excess the. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Background

Does anyone have any concrete information about his past in New Zealand they could add to the article? I remember, years ago, he used to preach in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, at the same time as the Wizard of New Zealand. It used to be very entertaining watching the Wizard run rings around him. He always seemed to take it in good grace, though. I'm sure he gained a lot of experience at debating in those years of crossing swords with the Wizard. TeWaitere (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard Ray speak before and I remember him mentioning outdoor preaching in Christchurch, New Zealand. Invmog (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This video confirms his 1) New Zealand background 2) His debates with The Wizard: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/60Minutes/tabid/371/articleID/93573/cat/46/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.149.85 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brambmanu, 3 October 2011

Hello, Could you please add in the beginning of "Early Life and Career" the following: According to Comfort's autobiography, "Out of the Comfort Zone," his mother was Jewish and his father a Gentile, making him Jewish by birth http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm. Thank you. Brambmanu (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to refer to Comfort as Jewish and comply with the requirements of WP:BLP, Comfort would need to self-identify as Jewish. It doesn't matter what Judaism 101 says, it isn't relevant. According to his autobiography, he describes his mother as Jewish and his father as a Gentile. He says that his parents put "Methodist" on his birth certificate apparently because his mother feared that there may be another Hitler and that he was given no instructions about God. See pages 123 and 202 of his book. I've added this information to the article. If you can find a reliable source where Comfort describes himself as Jewish we can add that. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Should an autobiography be used as a source? Especially for a living person? Theowarner (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it's okay per WP:BLPSPS (see the end of the section). For this kind of material about identity it's likely to be one of the best sources isn't it ? Do you have a specific concern in this case ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject can be used as a source for information about themselves, but only in a limited fashion. Regarding material that may be self-serving, aggrandizing or promotional, it's best to use secondary sources. For material that is controversial, it is best to use autobiographical or self-published sources only in order to properly attribute the subject's point of view, which should be emphasized as such. Nightscream (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Of more concern is the use of World Net Daily as a source in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WND and some content removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversion and Length

MY EDIT ON CONVERSION People are not "born Jewish," or "born Secular Humanist." Religions ideologies, and philosophies are taught. If one's biological parents were Catholic and believed in Bigfoot but you were adopted at birth by a couple who were atheist academics with conservative Hindu parents (i.e., the child's adoptive grandparents are religious Hindu); were you born a Catholic Bigfoot believer? Nonsense.

SECOND EDIT ON CONVERSION Apparently, one parent was Jewish or raised Jewish. I am unable to find any information on the the religion of the other parent. Perhaps both parents self-identified as Christian. At this time, the professed religious beliefs of Ray Comfort's parents are not know. I am unable to find statements attributable to these individuals that establish religious self-identification.

LENGTH I agree with the other reviewers that this page is excessive in length and seems self-promoting.

Sorry to butt in but actually to say one is "born Jewish" is really more a matter of Ethnology... To say there is no group of what we would term genetically "Semitic" people is kind of like saying there are no Asians... which is just rather silly. On the other hand it's equally improper to attribute someone of Semitic background a direct link to what most people would consider a "Historically Hebrew" race... there you're really getting into semantics. It has been argued and questioned as to whether or not a direct line back to Abraham survived the first century, and in some cases if it even survived until then. And then of course the argument that it never really existed, which is both a philosophical and religious argument. But then of course that takes you to exactly what I believe you're stating, that you're not "Born of" a religion, but it certainly can be argued that someone can be "born into" a religion, as you say if both parents are of one affiliation and teach that belief as a model of parenting. And certainly that is not uncommon, if it were I don't think the Barna Group would have bothered with a study that showed most people leaving the religion they were born into at 18. And I'm not here to advocate one or strike up an argument, I suppose just to clarify if it needs clarification. In due dilligence it could also be said that properly speaking modern day Judaism as a religion is a modification of the original Hebrew religion that required animal sacrifices and such but was effectively eliminated by the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. So if a person were indeed to say they were "born Jewish," it may indeed be warranted to question what they mean by that... though I feel the need to add the qualification that this is likely to be offensive. I suspect many people would say such a thing but perhaps not realize the actual perspective they are communicating. Hopefully that makes sense. --Arkcana (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Demeaning choice of words.

"In February 2009, Comfort challenged biologist and author Richard Dawkins to a debate, offering to donate $10,000 to him. Dawkins, who had previously stated a general policy not to debate with creationists,[11] countered that he would do it for $100,000."

Can we reword this? Because Dawkins says that he wanted it to be donated to his foundation, not to himself, which I think is a significant difference.

220.255.1.107 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

done. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Ray is definitely one that needs a criticisms section. He is is very anti-science and his views on science are at extreme opposition with the scientific community. His use of quote mining and other dishonest practices need to be included to round out the views on his page. 67.169.80.150 (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Read through Wikipedia:Criticism sections. It says that criticism sections can be added, but it's best to mix it in where appropriate in the article. If you have found sourced criticism of him, feel free to add it to the article where applicable. A criticism "section" should be avoided, if possible. Original research and your opinion can't be added; everything must be based on reliable sources. Thanks. :) American Eagle (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"He is is very anti-science..."!? He's against organized knowledge? Can I hear a  ? And maybe some logic? A guy can dream... Invmog (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind WP:TALK, and not let this turn into a general discussion of the topic. Talk Pages are solely to discuss ways to improve the article. With respect to criticism, we can include such material, as long as it adheres to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; you're right, sorry. Invmog (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. With out formal training he attempts to discredit scientific studies, scientists themselves (See his Everything from Nothing book), urges the replacement of a real science (evolution and biology) with a psudo-science (intelligent design) (see Ray Comfort & Thunderfoot DVD from his own site). He also tries to use one field of science's (cosmology) definition of evidence to try to invalidate another unrelated field of science (evolution) which has different criteria for evidence (which is perfectly acceptable). 24.6.169.121 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I, Invmog, moved this comment from 24.6.169.121 to the bottom of the discussion, where new edits are supposed to go. I did not in anyway change the above comment; I just moved it down here to comply with standard talk page procedures (otherwise my "Yeah; you're right, sorry," which was to Nightscream, would have appeared to be to this comment, which it isn't.) Invmog (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll kindly quote one of the editors on this topic, "Let's keep in mind WP:TALK, and not let this turn into a general discussion of the topic. Talk Pages are solely to discuss ways to improve the article. With respect to criticism, we can include such material, as long as it adheres to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc." Invmog (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one would encourage the idea of a criticism section of the article. Mr.Comfort has many critics of this work. PZ Myers is one of them (his blogs has several entries), Richard Dawkins is another. And it's not just Atheist groups. There are several Christians groups who don't aggree with his methods. There should be also mention of his tactics used in his ministry, which are just propaganda techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4l4d1um (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we'll need reliable sources. Note, btw, that the above comments (before yours, P414d1um) are from 2 years ago. But if you know of reliable sources, they can probably be added; as mentioned before, it's better to integrate them into the existing text, but we can figure that once we figure out what the sources are. One note: blogs are only very rarely reliable sources, and they are never reliable sources for information on living people other than the blog writer xyrself (see WP:BLPSPS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The banana video

Why has nobody mentioned his famous banana video? This video brought a lot of attention to Comfort on the internet and is indeed the reason I first came across him. RichYPE (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed mentioned in the article, in the section regarding TWOTM's printing of Origin of the Species. Just do a Find for the word "banana".

If you mean why is more material not devoted to that video in particular, it's because we need reliable, secondary sources in order to include such material. Please see the two linked policies for more on this. Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies on this matter. RichYPE (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted "Reality of Hell"

Can we please have the quotes around the words "Reality of Hell" in the first paragraph of the Debates section removed? They are not in the original quote (I checked) and though one accepts that Comfort's certainty in there being a hell may be debated, the phrase is part of a quotation of his own words, should that not be enough to emphasise the fact that it is HIS belief and not Wikipedia's?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragond (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have made the change you've suggested. You are, of course, welcome to make such changes yourself in the future :) TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013

URL to citation 23 should be changed from its current address to this address: (http://web.archive.org/web/20091109051344/http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?id=383&option=com_content&task=view)

Ray Comfort has since removed this entire page from his website, including the statement in question. This wayback machine log of the site still has the page in its entirety for posterity and reference.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day. Newunit18 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added it in using the archiveurl parameter so both the original and saved urls are there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Publications

The publication section is too long and is imbalanced compared to the rest of the article; it should either be trimmed down to notable publications, or moved to a separate article like List of Ray Comfort publications. Any thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Trim. A separate list of publications isn't really appropriate, unless the person is known primarily for being an author. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am intending to trim this, because no one has protested for two years. I will trim to the first page of books shown by Amazon, a rough estimate of his "most important"/bestselling books. I also dropped the font size and will keep it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigeng (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Overly large Publications section

It seems like every single pamphlet Comfort has ever made is in the Publications section, many from his own publishing company or a vanity press. I'm not an expert wikipedian but isn't there some WP rule that would apply to this? That is, this entry is not Comfort's website. And while it is an encyclopedia, it does not and should not list every publication Comfort has ever written. --Petzl (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to make this change. It's been asked for several times in the talk page without protest. I will use the first page of results from Amazon that comes up for searching for his name; presumably these are his most notable works. --Sigeng (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

New book; amazon

I think the the atheist book section over all should be expanded a bit, and the amazon rating sentence taken out unless its actually relevant.209.33.36.126 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed. I'm not sure in what ways this book should be expanded. Is it notable for some reason? It appears to be notable only in the sense that hit #1 in an Amazon category and was probably one of his better selling books (or at least it had high sales at release compared to other books). I don't think anyone cares that he did a promotional tour for the book or that it was #6 in some other category or whatever. –Sigeng (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Only notable books, please!

I've reverted a recent edit that inserted a pile of Comfort's book back into the bibliography. Prior to my trimming the list in the past the biggest complaint people had about this article was the ridiculously long list of Comfort's books. These complaints have it right: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many of Comfort's books are brief tracts, and readers come to Wikipedia to learn who the man is, not every piece of paper he ever signed.

At first I made an arbitrary decision to take the books on the first page of Amazon results, but this is arbitrary and Wikipedia has a policy for this anyway. We should include only Comfort's notable books (with citations to support their notability) in the article, as described in WP:NBOOK. There are five criteria for book notability, but only one applies to Comfort's books:

"The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

Having an ISBN number or not being self published does not make a book notable.

-Sigeng (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a firm opinion on which books should or should not be included in the Bibliography, but notability is not a valid argument. Notability (and this includes WP:NBOOK) refers to whether a topic merits its own article, and not whether it merits inclusion in an article. The idea that the only things that can be listed in lists in articles are noteworthy ones is obviously untrue, as any number of articles with lists will attest, and indeed, of the eight titles in the version of the list that you favor, Sigeng, only one of them is a notable one, and even that one wasn't wikilinked until I wikilinked it just now. I don't dispute that consideration must be given to what to include or include in lists that form only one section of an article, but notability is not a valid one. Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree on reflection that notability (deserving of its own article) is too strong of a criterion and I think I muddled the issue by introducing that. What I am attempting to do is find some criteria based on existing policy to give us a way to classify books as, let's call it, noteworthy, as in worth noting in the article. I think everyone can agree that "the book has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" certainly makes a book more interesting than one for which this is not the case.

That only appears to be the case for the eight titles I selected, so it clearly selects those ones over others. Some of them were already discussed elsewhere in the article.

More importantly, it gives provides a clear standard for either including past titles I overlooked or future titles when they appear. Sigeng (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

Where this wiki says that the movie 180 has had 'some attention online', it should read 'is a viral video with 4.3 million views.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI 137.119.136.215 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Youtube is not a reliable source. We would need an independent secondary source for that sort of content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"no formal training in theology"

"no formal training in theology" - why is this the very 2nd sentence?

It is very odd, since it is on the 3rd PAGE of the article reference!

If ABC found it 3rd-page material, why it is 2nd sentence material here?

I smell detractor edits.

Deipnosopher (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead does need work. TheAE talk/sign 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the lede, but does belong in the article. Since Comfort is an author and preacher, his education or lack thereof needs discussed somewhere. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but with your addition, it made the same fact and source be used twice (see here). The fact in now included under Ray Comfort#Origins and theology (your addition). Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The education of ANY person involved in a 'hot topic' debate should be part of their biography. Especially if that education has a direct tie to the debate at hand. Here Ray Comfort's education in both theology and biology is extremely important. The main page for any figure should include relevant facts to their importance. Ray Comfort's theological and scientific background here are of indubitable importance.

I think adding his education is important since he is an educator himself. I believe he has a highschool diploma from Austraila. Does anyone know the school? --JTsams  talk 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

References

"Banana Man" reference

Cameron is referred to as "Banana Man" twice in the article, but no explanation is given. I know why he is referred to as such - because of his laughable assertion that the modern banana proves the existence of God because it "looks designed". He cites as evidence the fact that is is yellow and has a non-slip surface and no pips or seeds and points towards the mouth when in fact the modern banana has been cultivated by humans and is VERY different to wild bananas! Isn't it therefore appropriate that a section explaining the controversy surrounding his claims and his subsequent nickname "Banana Man"? 77.100.24.221 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. The banana found in the wild was 3 and a half inches long, green, and with big seeds in it. Hardly the convenient, selectively bred banana that Comfort claims was designed by God for humans. 174.116.224.54 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wot, No Bananas?"

I note that the only reference to a Banana is an oblique one which may not have much meaning to anyone unaware of it's relevance to Mr. Comfort. Given that the "Banana demonstration" is probably his most famous and widely known work - in fact many people outside of the US and New Zealand refer to "the Banana Man" without having any notion of his name, such is the notoriety of that particular incident - not to have it included seems to be an egregious omission. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request "Ethnicity"

"Jewish" is not an ethnicity, it's a faith. What Comfort tells about his mother is not sufficient to prove that his ancestors were members of the "jewish people", i.e. citizens of Israel or any other ethnicity which could qualify as "jewish". Should therefore be deleted from the Infobox, his heritage is sufficiently described in the text. --Chianti (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Declined. Judaism is a religion (faith). "Jewish" is an ethnicity. Ethnicity is more cultural than genetic, and one may self-identify with a particular ethnicity even if one is not genetically linked to it. Comfort's self-identification as Jewish is sufficient. –Sigeng (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ray Comfort. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/dec/02/ut-professor-considers-legal-action-over-use-charl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Did not work. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Christian

Mr. Comfort self identifies as a Jewish Christian and another editor keeps deleting it out of the lead. How much clearer does his position need to be than his own quote in the article? "Comfort identifies himself as Jewish." Lipsquid (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

He identifies as Jewish, but I don't see a source in which he identifies as a "Jewish Christian". (He might, for example, identify as a "Messianic Jew".) StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue of wording rather than actual content. Comfort is a Christian or a Messianic Jew by his beliefs, which he clearly knows and believes. He just describes himself as Jewish. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A Jewish Christian is a Messianic Jew. If you think that fits better, change it to Messianic Jew. It can't stay as is, he identifies as Jew from his own statements. Lipsquid (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Lipsquid: He may identify as a Jew. Regardless, he doesn't preach Judaism so he can't be called a Jewish minister. Furthermore, what evidence do we have he's even a practicing Jew? Comfort makes a bunch of claims for theological reasons but the reader isn't going to understand that nuance with the edits you're making. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You can call him whatever you want, but he self-identifies as a Jew and he was born an ethnic Jew. I believe that 1990s guy is correct and he should be labeled a Messianic Jew, i was just fixing the article. We aren't supposed to interpret nuances for readers, which is usually either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, we are supposed to quote reliable sources. Lipsquid (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source for "Messianic Jew" - not all Christians who are Jewish identify in this way. StAnselm (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You reverted the edit where I stated he self-identified as a Jew. He very specifically says that he identifies religiously as both a Jew and a follower of Christ. This is ridiculous and a WP:BLP violation Lipsquid (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I did: there is one statement in the article about him identifying as Jewish, and that has been there all the time. But looking over the edit history, I realise I've been confusing and I apologise for that. The thing is, as the Jewish Christian article points out, the term is a historical one, and not all Christians-who-Jewish identify in that way. So I should have said in my edit summary that Comfort identifies as both Jewish and Christian. StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then shouldn't the lead say he is Jewish and Christian? Or say he is a Jewish Christian or a Christian Jew, I think I have tried both of the latter two combinations. Lipsquid (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

But the lead is using it as an adjective, not a noun: "Christian minister". StAnselm (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Call him an ethnic Jew and a Christian minister. He can't be a Jewish Minister. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Jewish and Christian are both used as an adjective, I think you people have lost your mind or have a serious bias issue. The source says he identifies as a religious Jew and you want to ignore it. 14:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

But it's clear that when Comfort describes himself as a Jew, he does not mean "Jewish" the way most other people would understand it (not even in an ethnic sense, I think). So, to avoid any misunderstanding about what Comfort believes, I think we should call him a Christian in the lead (and I don't think he would disagree with that either, honestly). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

He calls himself a Jew, but to avoid any misunderstanding about what the man himself believes, we should ignore what he says and call him a Christian? I know what you are saying and I get the confusion, but this is nonsensical especially when the article specifically states in the second paragraph "Comfort identifies himself as Jewish." I was just rolling along and happened across this article and it was obviously jacked up with conflicting statements so I made an edit, I am not trying to cause a problem. If you want to ignore what he believes, whatever, but at least delete the contradictory sentence about him identifying a Jewish. Then we can all act like we never saw it. Lipsquid (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If we really need a citation, Comfort says here, "I cannot express to you how grateful I am that I am a Christian". StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Which statement is last. That stays and older statements are qualified as previous positions. You realize one cannot religiously be a Christian and a Jew at the same time, unless one is a Messianic Jew and I already tried that Lipsquid (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest changing the sentence about Comfort describing himself as a Jew to something like "Comfort is a Christian,[ref] but he also identifies himself as a Jew.[ref]" This will clarify his beliefs and solve the intro wording, as then we can just call him a Christian there. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The word "but" is a bit synthy, though. In any case, the source says "Jewish", not "a Jew". StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How about "Comfort identifies as both Jewish and Christian"? StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about being "religiously" a Jew? It's much more likely he means it in purely an ethnic/cultural sense. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I am okay with that proposal. The source from the book is definitely speaking about religious beliefs, the section is titled "Ugly and hateful religion". Lipsquid (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Religion on birth certificate?

I don't know how his New Zealand birth certificate can have said he was "Methodist". New Zealand birth certificates have never asked a newborn's religion. --Hugh7 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

Please add the following line to the Filmography section:

* ''Exit: The Appeal of Suicide'' (2017): Narrator, Writer, Executive producer<ref>{{cite web | last1=Law | first1=Jeannie | title=Ray Comfort Releases New Faith-Based Film to Help People Combat Suicidal Thoughts | url=http://http://www.christianpost.com/news/ray-comfort-faith-based-film-exit-help-people-combat-suicidal-thoughts-192707/ | date=July 20, 2017 | publisher=''ChristianPost.com'' | accessdate=Sept 17, 2017}}

73.140.51.112 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Origin of Species

I received a copy of the Origin of Species with the forward in it today on campus. The section should be updated to the present tense. It does contain all chapters in it (meaning a little work with a razor blade created a perfectly good copy). 68.51.88.250 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)cjcastor

New sections go at the bottom of the Talk Page (just as new posts go at the bottom of sections). Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now in that section it speaks of "Comfort's evangelical musings and old creationist arguments presented on every page of this introduction." Is that the NPOV way of Wikipedia? I say it should be reworded, or, to be fair, we should say that the rest of the book is full of "Darwin's evolutionist musings and old evolutionist arguments presented on almost every page." Invmog (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what a reliable secondary source says, and it properly reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus. NPOV requires due weight to the clear scientific consensus, and requires that we do not give "equal validity" to pseudoscience. The requirements for fringe subjects preclude your suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Dave on his Talk Page, due weight to the scientific consensus only applies in articles that lack the context of controversy (i.e.: the articles on Dorylus, Dionaea muscipula, Finches, etc. But in articles that are about a controversial subject like EvC (or related articles), the article cannot appear to endorse one side as a matter-of-fact conclusion. To reuse the metaphor I used earlier, think of a scientific article on a non-controversial subject like a science classroom: You don't mention the creationist perspective in the article on each species, because that article is in the domain of science, and creationism lacks any scientific standing. But think of controversy articles like a social studies classroom: You allow each side to talk, and do not endorse one side or the other, instead making sure to let everyone know what each person said.

If a reliable secondary source says that, then the assertion must be attributed to that source more explicitly than in a non-controversy article. "Eugenie Scott called it misinformation" is fine. "The scientific community, including a Darwin biographer, called it 'muddled thinking'" is fine. But merely saying "it contains misinformation" is not. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The first three pages of the introduction are not full of creationist drivel, because they were stolen from a man who actually knows something. - Soulkeeper (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, Dave, I completely agree with you about the pseudoscience part; I don't know why in the world Macroevolution has been tolerated for so long. Invmog (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But, then again, saying that won't get us anywhere because you'll think all the evidence points to macroevolution and I'll think all the evidence points to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Wikipedia isn't a forum to discuss worldviews even though people's worldviews are made apparent in their edits. Invmog (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the article on macroevolution, it's "tolerated" for the same reason the article on any other controversial topic is tolerated: Because it's noteworthy, and encyclopedic. We do not include only topics on scientific ideas, or even valid ones. It would be irresponsible of an encyclopedia to not include articles on pseudoscientific topics. Moreover, only a portion of the macroevolution article deals with the version of the term as used by creationists; most of it deals with the scientific uses of it. Nightscream (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request edit: In the second paragraph of this section, the article states:

According to Comfort's website, "nothing has been removed from Darwin's original work",^[29] but Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), noted that Comfort deleted four chapters by Darwin that described the evidence for evolution, adding that two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcased biogeography, some of Darwin's strongest evidence for evolution.^[30]

While it is certainly true that the original abridged version did indeed omit those four chapters, it is not true that Comfort stated on his website at that time that “nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work.” The page linked in Reference #29 is to an Internet Wayback Machine archive dated 9 November 2009:

29. "Origin Into Schools". Living Waters. 2009. Archived from the original on 9 November 2009. Retrieved 31 October 2009.

But this page was posted after the release of the second edition of the book, which as the following paragraph in the article states, does include those four missing chapters (yet still omits Darwin’s preface and glossary of terms).

Calling up the immediately preceding IWM archive of that same page (dated 3 August, 2009) reveals a much shorter and very differently laid out page. It is obviously referring to the first edition, which it outright states is “abridged.” There is no claim that this version contained the whole of Darwin’s work. The stated page count of the edition described differs (280 vs. 304 pages), and the whole tone of the page is different. The photo is of an obviously thinner book than the one shown in the 9-Nov-2009 archive page linked in Reference #29. The 9-Nov-2009 archive in Reference #29 is thus very clearly talking solely about the second edition of the book, so Mr. Comfort was not lying (or at least not lying as much, since it does still omit Darwin’s Preface and Glossary, while claiming that “nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work”).

With this in mind, Reference #29 really needs to be replaced with the referenced link above to the 3-Aug-2009 archive (or to the only earlier archive, dated 25 June 2009 [presumably the original version of the page]), and the text that basically accuses Mr. Comfort of lying about the book containing the whole of Darwin’s work needs to be changed or removed outright, because as it stands it’s a false and defaming accusation against a living subject, and could constitute libel. In the interests of integrity, this long-standing wrong should be acknowledged, saying something to the effect that earlier revisions of this article included what amounted to an accusation of Comfort dishonestly claiming that nothing had been removed in the first edition, but the reference backing that up was to a web archive dated after the release of, and obviously referring to, the second edition, and acknowledging that the earlier versions of the page referring to the first edition do clearly state that it was an abridged version of Darwin’s book.

I’m certainly no fan of Mr. Comfort, and I believed this accusation for way too long largely because of this article. A simple click on the Previous Archive left-pointing arrowhead in the Internet Wayback Machine header was all it took to show the truth. (COMALite J (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC) — this is my first Edit of a Talk: page. If I didn’t do this properly, I apologize, but I felt that it was important and was locked from editing the page myself due to the current discretionary sanctions on the page coupled with my own newbie status.)

The article does not explicitly accuse him of lying. What he wrote is dishonest, even if, as you said, technically true. So there is no problem with the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead link

The link used as reference #2, [6] is dead, and can be rescued through a trip in the Wayback Machine, at [7]. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Dairy {talk} 10:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Early life sentence makes no sense

The sentence in his early life biography makes no sense: According to Comfort's autobiography, his parents put "Methodist" on his birth certificate because his mother feared the possibility of "another Hitler", but he was given no religious instruction as a child. We, the audience, are left to wonder why his mother did that: were the parents Jewish? Were they afraid that Ray would grow up to become Hitler? Does New Zealand, as a previous commenter has pointed out, even ask for religion on their birth certificates? This mysterious sentence needs to be cleaned up with some solid sources, or just ditched entirely. I vote we ditch it per WP:BLP. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The "feared another Hitler" part is not in the source cited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ray Comfort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raycomfortbooks.com/About_Ray_Comfort
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131114011242/http://www.bullypulpit.com/raycomfort/2011/03/atheists-question-my-education.html to http://www.bullypulpit.com/raycomfort/2011/03/atheists-question-my-education.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220091147/http://www.christianpost.com/Education/General/2009/02/christian-evangelist-s-book-ranked-bestselling-atheist-item-14/ to http://www.christianpost.com/Education/General/2009/02/christian-evangelist-s-book-ranked-bestselling-atheist-item-14/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dontdissdarwin.com/analysis.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins non-debate in the Debates section

Sorry but it seems notable that Dawkins, who debates frequently around the world, refused to debate Comfort despite a very large monetary incentive" Actually, no. His standard response to creationists who want to debate him is "That would look very good on your CV. Not so good on mine." Generally, debates between scientists and anti-science loons are not a good way of show who is right, because of Gish gallops among other things. It is completely unsurprising that Dawkins will not debate Banana guy. That Comfort is willing to pay big just shows how desperately he wants recognition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain how a non-debate is a debate? Comfort wanted a Dawkins debate on his CV, but he can't have that, so he needs to have "not having debated Dawkins" on his CV instead, as the next-best thing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"...and preaches in Huntington Beach, California."

The wording "...and preaches in Huntington Beach, California" is unclear. It could refer to him preaching in a church. Actually, according to his face book page, "If you're ever in Huntington Beach, CA we preach every Saturday, Lord willing, at the base of the pier from 1:30-3:30pm." Alas, I could not find a reliable source that discusses this, but there are a boatload of videos on youtube showing him doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at some more unreliable sources and found a lot of them talk about Comfort criticizing Westboro Baptist Church. One example:[8] Does anyone know of any reliable sources that cover this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Banana

The thing about the banana is blatantly false and clearly biased. It was his parody of atheism...he didn’t “learn” anything about bananas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.47.136 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources saying that? Poe's Law is relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure here’s a video him and his team put together... https://www.livingwaters.com/movie/the-fool/

You should have a look at WP:RS to find out what a reliable source is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: the video referenced above is on YouTube here:[9]). It is, as one would expect, purely promotional, but significantly he never claims that he was right about the banana, that he never said it, or that it was intended a parody. His basic thesis is that his banana mistake opened up opportunities for him; secular websites and TV programs allowed him on expecting him to be a total idiot and give them a good show and were surprised when he, in his words, "was able to string two sentences together". So even if we accepted the video as a source (See WP:SPS for our policy on that) it doesn't actually contradict what is in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit

• What I think should be changed: Right in the introduction it says, "and has written several books." But It should be changed to "and has written over 100 books."
• Why it should be changed: Because there is a big difference between "several" and "over 100."
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.amazon.com/Ray-Comfort/e/B001JS57SW

Brambmanu (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Amazon is not an appropriate secondary source, per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Atheist Delusion

In 2016, Ray Comfort's "The Atheist Delusion" won the award for "Best Science Film" at the International Christian Film Festival. Creationist Ray Comfort Just Won “Best Science Film” at a Christian Film Festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.54 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a warning this website seems to be biased against Ray and his film. This article also seems to mock the film and the festival. this was an edited version of the victory image that the person who wrote the article made to mock Ray. Ray's original can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlingJackal (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That is great. Pig-ignorant bollocks like that should be mocked. Adding "There were no other nominees" exposes that "award" as the sham it is. Regarding bias, read WP:YWAB.

All links are not usable here, the Friendly Atheist one because it is a blog and the other two because they are just pictures with practically no content.

Please do not just append your opinion to other people's contributions. I added the proper signature to that old text. And yours to your text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021

the line I'm asking to change is the first two lines about him at the very top when you head to his wiki. Change many books to over a hundred of books because Ray said so himself that he has written over one hundred here is a source that sells his books hope this is enough evidence. Original source when I first asked to change this is here→ from 0.38 secs to 1 minute HowlingJackal (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

What part of the article are you referring to? Also, I think such a claim needs to be sources by a secondary reliable source. Veverve (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I agree, this will need secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thriftbooks is not a reliable source, nor does it show hundreds of books. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

to change several books to over 100 books Jesusfre (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thriftbooks lists 99.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/ray-comfort/202810/

Goodreads lists 170.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/8662.Ray_Comfort

Amazon lists 321 but many are different language versions, audio versions, or large print versions of the same book. plus some that are edited by Comfort but written by Darwin, Whitefield, Spurgeon, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Ray-Comfort/e/B001JS57SW

Rationalwiki quotes Comfort as claiming "He is the author of more than 60 books, including The Evidence Bible (a Gold Medallion Award finalist), God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, and The Way of the Master."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

I suggest that the OP compile a list of Comfort's books and post them here on the talk page. (and of course tell us where you got the list so we can verify the claim). We can go from there.

2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:6831:3D80:599B:74CA (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source mentions the number of books he wrote, we can quote that. If not, we do not do our own research. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CALC (which is part of WP:OR), if we find a reliable source that allows us to create a bibliography for Comfort, we are allowed to count the books in the bibliography; "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." Again, Jesusfre (who made the one edit and has never edited again) is free to create a list of Comfort's books and post it here (WP:OR says "This policy does not apply to talk pages") with a source. If the source is reliable (see WP:RS) we can from that create both a bibliography and a better count than "several" for the number of books written. 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:5492:DBAA:58D1:5E76 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You also have to find out if those are all different books or one is just a new edition of another which has been given another name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Atheist’s Worst Nightmare

It’s misleading to say he “argued” that the banana was a worst nightmare for an atheist, when he has indicated that in context it’s more like a parody or standup routine. Whether he knew the banana was evolved or not, it does not change that he was joking. 24.152.255.173 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How can you know? See Poe's law.

Or rather, you need a reliable source saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously needs to be rewritten in an unbiased manner.

Obviously needs to be rewritten by someone who does not write from a negative perspective of the subject. 216.164.82.118 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have any concret, precise suggestions, then feel free to write them. Veverve (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@216.164.82.118: What passages would you point to as examples? Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2024

76.217.29.188 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

when it says that ray comfort give tracts saying people will be sent to hell unless they "say a sinners prayer" is wrong. His tracts call for repentance and faith in Christ, and highlight free and unmerited grace. This statement about needing to say a prayer to escape God's wrath is inaccurate and casts him in a bad light in stead of a neutral one.

Should be changed from "unless they say a prayer to acknowledge Christ's substitutionary atonement. " to "unless they put their faith in Christ for the unmerited remission of their sins."

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)