This is an archive of past discussions about Michael Woroniecki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry this such a big chunk of text with little formatting. I don't want to leave spaces for someone to insert their comments after my every sentence.
I ask all editors, administrators and individuals editing this page to not only read, but realize the importance of, what I write here. I understand that what I'm going to write is not, in most cases, appropriate on an article discussion page. However, there is an individual who insists on inserting his disruptive comments in every attempt to work through this article in a civil and precise manner.
Joshua, it is standard protocol to insert and indent responses to arguments at the point of relevance. It is not "disruptive".72.64.46.234 (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
He has written and edited the vast majority of this article. He continues to post long rants on the user pages of anyone involved. I have refrained from writing this before and opted for email correspondence for the sake of staying on point and protecting this individual's privacy. But both he and ALI made it clear that it would be better to post the information here. I have also asked said individual to reveal his identity and motives but he has refused to do so. I am left with no choice because it is essential for everyone involved with this page to know who this individual is and what he is doing. Recently he has been using the IP Adresses: 71.251.183.240 and 72.64.46.234.
Joshua, I work from a domain that rotates the IP. That is not my fault. I'd log on a screen name, but I'm really too tired from enduring your snubs and ad hominem and attacks.72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
At this time I will leave out his name and personal information.
Someone wrote a comment here that I only recently read that said that they doubt that this one individual, who is ranting insisting on the inclusion of all negative references, has the sole purpose of destroying Michael Woroniecki's reputation. With all due respect, you have no idea.
He's right, but I don't need too. From what I've read on him in the national media, He's done a fine job of defaming himself on his own. Maybe your father should take his case to civil court and sue them for defamation if your are really convinced he has a case? From what I have read on your father's blog, the moment you father puts a name and face to the accusations he's made, he will have an unquestionable case for defamation.72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It is incomprehensible what this person is doing. Had I not seen all this first-hand, I would not believe it. Where do I start? This individual has produced 13 YouTube videos made from Woroniecki's home videos and other materials that he edited against Michael Woroniecki. 13! Does that seem like normal behavior to you? He filled the videos with filthy remarks and comments, including sexually immoral content. I contacted YouTube and the videos were immediately removed because the content was outside the YouTube/Google policies. It was also invasion of privacy.
YouTube has a tendency to er on the side of self preservation. They don't want to be sued. Elimination of videos is not a clear cut case of defamation. It is a clear cut case of YouTube saying, "hey, someone has complained, let's er on the side of caution and delete these vids. It's a free domain. It's our right."
I've seen those videos. Most of that material is just documentation from videos and audios your father has made to demonstrate how he influenced Yates' delusions. For instance. Four of the thirteen videos you mentioned were just cut straight out of the teaching video that the Texas Courts documented as evidence in the second Yates trial. 6 of the videos were documentary style with clips from national media and said clips from your father's materials demonstrating the same point. That's 10 of the 13 videos. I see nothing abnormal about that. One clip was your father berating some Americans on a sidewalk in Europe, calling them "big fat hypocrites" and asking them to spit on a picture of Jesus he was carrying, another was an excerpt from your father's video explaining that his pushing a couple police officers in Spain was "holy Spirit Courage", which your father now denies at his website, and another demonstrated your father was sensitive about his sexual identity being perceived as a "fairy" because of his dancing.72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you Google search for them you can find the remnants and confirm the contents in the comments and descriptions, but the videos are gone. The AOL page he hosted has already been discussed here so I won't go into it all. Suffice to say that he had single-handedly built an entire website against Michael Woroniecki tracking and posting Woroniecki's whereabouts real-time as Woroniecki traveled across the country. He also bragged on that site that he had become a "mike-aholic". Is this normal behavior? Using various IP adresses and user names such as Mr.RangerTom, Thomas Anderson (also his user name on the early parts of this page) and Pranalite, he has flooded the internet with his bizzare and hateful comments about Woroniecki for the past 8 years. He has often carried on "comment conversations" with his other user names. He has not only called Michael Woroniecki a "monster", "wolf", "unstable psycotic fool", etc... but he also stated once that the Woroniecki's are like "alien cockroaches" inhabiting human bodies. Definitely not normal.
Alien cockroach?. haha, Good one. Tell me then, is your father abnormal too?:
"You guys don't know Jesus Christ!" Michael Woroniecki shouted. "You are Mormon scumbags." ... Woroniecki described his listeners as "marshmallows,"... saying that their faces looked as white as "milk." He then addressed the women as "contemporary witches." ..."Get out there and be a witch," Woroniecki sarcastically preached. http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/37644 Anti-LDS protest Disturbs campus, Daily Universe72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
He has drawn on, cut and pasted dozens of photos in every which way of Woroniecki's family, often drawing parallels with the Matrix movies. (All this can be confirmed, without going into the details, by any intelligent individual who reads all the comments. It's obvious that they are all by the same author. Email me if you want the links. I have more information to substantiate everything I'm saying that would only clutter this page up even more.) He has gone to the utmost extent to defame and warp anything to do with Michael Woroniecki. I could keep going but I think you get the picture. All you have to do is really think about what he is constantly posting here and all over Wikipedia on the user talk page of anyone who becomes remotely involved with this article. Think about it, why would anyone be so driven to do this?
He even went so far as to stalk the Woroniecki family five years after the Yates trial so as to find out where they lived, where Woroniecki, his wife and children worked and posted it earlier on this discussion page.
If I recall correctly your father was tracked down in 2004 by a "private investigator" in Texas associated with the Yates defense team in the interest of serving your father with a subpoena so that he might testify as a witness. The PI gave permission to release that information but wanted to remain anonymous. It was later demonstrated that such an entry was inappropriate and the poster hasn't reposted it since. As for working at Chuck E Cheeses, that was reported in a University of Virginia student newspaper, and your family was the one who revealed that.
When not preaching, Mike Woroniecki said the family finances its trips from earnings at part-time jobs at Chuck-E-Cheese and Home Depot.The Cavalier Daily
No one was "stalking" your father Joshua. And by the way, that subpoena does exists according to a lawyer who has recently requested it from the Texas Courts. Perhaps you and your father should stop claiming on your blog that it doesn't exist?72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To say that this is bizzare is a gross understatement. Lucky Michael Woroniecki who gets this guy. The Yates case and all the media coverage immediately afterwards happened nine years ago. Nine years.
People still talk about Hitler and Ted Bundy. People have a fascination with pathological individuals. What's your point?72.64.46.234 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
He is the only one who is constantly obsessed with Woroniecki. He will personally attack all of you, as he has done to many reporters and others, to make you feel defensive for showing any hint of neutrality. According to this individual, unless you say something negative and demeaning about Woroniecki you are showing a positive bias in Woroniecki's favor. I apologize for anything you may have had to deal with because of all this and for his flooding your talk pages with endless ranting.
IP 72, As I asked you on your talk page, please do not insert your comments between another editors comments, it has made the discussion above unreadable. Off2riorob (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I made the responses before checking my mail last night. I'm distracted by the flu and only had enough energy to deal with the comments last night, so that slipped by me. I had previously been checking the color of my IP talk link to look for messages. Apparently the correct procedure is to indent beneath the entire entry, so I'm sorry for that mistake in understanding. I had no intention of being disruptive and I thought indentation resolved the issue of legibility.72.64.46.234 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Joshua, I work from a domain that rotates the IP. That is not my fault. I'd log on a screen name, but I'm really too tired from enduring your snubs and ad hominem and attacks.
I would have to have a screen name in order to do that, but I don't have one. ....Look,...(sigh)... I'm quite literally sick with the flu and tired and I don't have the energy to deal with all the ad hominem attacks and hair splitting nuances that JW wants accomplished in this article. Dealing with the previous discourse of JW took a lot out of me last night. His attacks aren't stated as opinions, but certainties that would qualify as serious libel if he were able to associate a name with them, and he has tried to get that, if you recall. If you know anything about the preaching father from the college articles on him, you would know where he got his ad hominem, nit picking and emotionally exasperating personality from. Therefore, I believe you should understand why I would like to retire not only from editing this article but from this neutrality discussion as well. I just don't have the energy with this flu. That might be well for you, for as soon as I am gone, so will be his exasperating ad hominem tactics, and your life will become prettier. I trust that you will make sure the article retains the character the media and authors documented on Woroniecki. As for O'Malley being a one book citation (30 citations), many of the citations can be duplicated in the Grand Rapids Press articles (4 of which I sent to one to one of the posters here) and the book Breaking Point by Suzy Spencer and possibly some of the other net and newspaper articles linked in the footnotes. O'Malley isn't a one book show on Woroniecki and neither am I a one man sideshow freak trying to undermine his father's ministry.72.64.46.234 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I said it before and I'll say it again: "Nobody here has the sole purpose of making Michael Woroniecki look bad." All I meant by that is that 72.64 is not your shadowy antagonist risen from the depths of hell. My hope is that you two will treat each other like people, which you are not doing. Joshua, stop wielding 72.64's IP information like a sword, you don't even know his name and personal information. I originally posted the WHOIS that is your source. 72.64, the personal attacks you have made are unacceptable, and for an extent that applies to Joshua as well. Do not compare Woronieki to Hitler. Do not assume 72.64 is a stalker. I don't care if you're both here with two single opposing goals regarding Woroniecki, you will aim for a compromise and you will treat each other with respect. Let's step this down a bit. ALInomnom14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Lead paragraph
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some issues with the lead paragraphs. Note that I have been checking from this version, as it was before I first edited.
"self-ordained" is sourced to The Cavalier Daily, but does not appear in that article.
"itinerant" is sourced to the same article, but also does not appear. It does appear in Time, (The Yates Odyssey July 26 2006), and ABC Primetime (27 July 2006).
"fundamentalist" also sourced to The Cavalier Daily, but is expressing an opinion of the reporter. I do not see this particular opinion as notable enough, especially for the lead.
"fire and brimstone" is how ABC News described Woroniecki (Good Morning America March 27 2002), so this reference should replace or supplement the existing reference. Grand Rapids Press (January 23 2002) also used this description, so I think its inclusion is warranted.
"who is notorious for his 'belligerant evangelical style'" is sourced to O'Malley p.106 but does not appear there, and to Grand Rapids Press, where it is shown but does not support the qualifier "notorious".
"negative ministerial influence" - this is a systhesis of various sources, possibly not an unreasonable one, but we are not supposed to synthesize at all. "Influence" is clearly supportable IMO.
"His teachings have been criticized as cultlike and dangerous..." - this strong statement must have a strong source, preferably for the phrase "cultlike and dangerous". There are several sources listed in the citations:
Religion News Blog / Apologetics Index - a not so neutral source IMO, but it does not support the quote in any case.
Countercult.com - run by the same people as Apologetics Index, also does not support the quote.
ABC News (Yates' Preacher Warned of Hellfire) - does not support the quote. The closest this gets is quoting an ex-follower saying "the preachings are more like brainwashing".
Houston Chronicle - says "Detractors liken Woroniecki to a cult leader, brainwashing those who seek his advice", not really supportive of the statement
Dallas Morning News (April 6 2002) - does not support the quote at all.
The Daily Collegian (September 30 2004) - does not support the quote at all
Overall I think this is another synthesis that should not be included.
I know that some of this has already been removed, but I think it useful to look at this earlier version, particularly as the "fire and brimstone" quote should probably be put back in. I haven't looked at the aliases, as I do not have a copy of Spencer's book.
Most of the paragraphs have been removed, but I don't see a problem with restoring them and then working to improve it from there. Shall we go?
(Oh, also: I know that we made a big deal about not commenting in the middle of a response before, but I feel if we had a separate discussion under each bullet relevant to that point we could address each point much more easily. Does that sound good?) ALInomnom13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no benefit in reverting to a previous version that looks worse that what is there now, if anything individual is valuable wants reinserting then we can talk about that. I agree that the fire and brimstone is well cited and wants replacing, I also don't think we should be calling him cult like and dangerous in the lede and it is weakly cited and a syth of a few opinion pieces. I support that, removing the cult like and dangerous and replacing the fire and brimstone comments.Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
When I click on the Religion News Blog entry on Michael Woroniecki, I find this statement under the heading "Our View": "Michael Peter and Rachel Woroniecki are controversial preachers whose behavior while ”evangelizing” is despicable. Their extremist views and behavior fall outside the norms of normal, orthodox evangelical Christianity. In our opinion the group forms a one-family cult of Christianity." Accordingly, the citation supports the statement that the subject's behavior has been described as "cultlike." We are left, then, to argue about the source, which I am prepared to do if necessary.Jibbytot (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
To me that looks like one extremist calling another extremist an extremist, the subject is a living person and exceptional claims for such content would require very strong citations, which the religion news blog is clearly not. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope that such argumentative statements are not the norm for Wiki editing. You simply make conclusory statements without any support. Why is the host of the RNB an extremist? Why is the RNB "clearly" not a very strong citation? The issue I dealt with was whether it supported the description "cultlike." Does it or does it not? We have to get beyond that before addressing credibility. Now, on that secondary issue, what is your evidence that it is not credible? If you know anything about Christian apologetics -- meaning, defense of the faith -- you know that Christians are best suited to define the parameters of what constitutes orthodoxy and deviations therefrom, no? I happen to belong to a listserv called apologia.org, which limits posts to those who can demonstrate a professional competence in the field of apologetics. Anton Hein belongs to that listserv as well and is considered an authoritative source within the field of Christian apologetics. Hence, your characterization that he is an extremist is most suspect and not a little absurd.Jibbytot (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of apologetics, let me rephrase one thing. I should not have implied that only Christians are best qualified to address orthodoxy as there are obviously many academics who are not Christians but are well qualified to opine on such matters.Jibbytot (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the "fire and brimstone" description and source are warranted. While I haven't said so directly, it should be apparent that I disagree that "cultlike" should be removed -- a cult of Christianity is simply a religious movement of sorts that departs in some critical way from orthodox Christian religious belief. It does not denote or connote evil. Moreover, the citation to Countercult.com/ApologeticsIndex.org/Religion News Blog is appropriate as the host of the sites is considered an expert Christian apologist. However, I don't have a problem with removing the word "dangerous."Jibbytot (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is he on the official American list of religious cults? no? He appears to me to be more of a evangelizing preacher rather than a cult . Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether the subject is on some "official" list of cults does not mean that the tenets of his belief system are necessarily outside the realm of a cult. But now of course you're moving the target, arguing that the subject is an evangelizing preacher rather than a cult. Sir or madam, a person is not a "cult." The issue is whether someone who claims to be a Christian posits beliefs that are so unorthodox as to be a "cult of Christianity" -- which is to say, so outside the mainstream of orthodoxy as to be a cult. You obviously contend that a person cannot be an evangelizing preacher and hold beliefs that are cultlike, which simply illustrates the fact that you are unqualified to opine on the matter of whether the adjective should be used to describe the subject's beliefs. Moreover, you have criticized Anton Hien, who is indeed qualified so to opine, and yet you have just made the substantive claim that the subject is not cultlike without having a proper or even informed understanding of the term.Jibbytot (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Of course, I tried to emphasize above that whether or not the subject is cultlike is NOT the issue. Rather, it is whether his beliefs have been described by a reputable source as such. I think I have demonstrated that.Jibbytot (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So who thinks he is a cult then and where is the claim cited to, what we can do is remove the claim from the lede where it is getting excessive coverage and put in it a section about his ministry and cite it to the strongest citation and attribute it to who thinks rhat and why etc. Cultish, cult like, hes not a cult by definition as far as I can see. We have no reason to tag him with excessive labels, he a evangelical fire and brimstone repent now or die in the arms of the devil type preacher by the looks of him, in England we just ignore such people, he knew a woman that killed her babies and people say he may have had an affect on that, no charges, nothing, any police interviews with him about that? Apologetics don't actually refer to him as a cult, as far as I can see.[1]Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, then. We can't say he's a cult leader, so preacher is good. There is a statement in the lede that says he has been criticized by x parties as having "cultlike teachings". It has one reference which links to several sources. So it's okay to talk about what other people say about him, but we should exercise caution when characterizing him ourselves. My vote lies with "preacher". ALInomnom20:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the subject should not be characterized as a "cult leader." I agree too that Apologics Index does not specifically describe his teachings as "cult-like," although it does specifically denote his beliefs as a "cult of Christianity." And the RNB site does describe the entire family group as "a one-family cult of Christianity." I therefore still favor noting that his teachings have been criticized as a cult of Christianity but would not object to some alternative to the word "cultlike." Why not simply say that his teachings have been criticized as a cult of Christianity and then link to the two sources?Jibbytot (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Off2rio, how is your question that "[H]e knew a woman that killed her babies and people say he may have had an affect on that, no charges, nothing, any police interviews with him about that?" material to what we're discussing?Jibbytot (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
How about "His teaching has been criticized by the media and members of the psychiatric profession", cited to Lucy Puryear quoted by ABC News and to Chris Cuomo on ABC Primetime? My problem with the RNB site is partly that it adds undue weight to a minority opinion. Had they been quoted in more mainstream media it would be different. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we're getting somewhere, although certainly Christians do indeed search Wiki in an effort to glean information about persons who claim adherence to Christian beliefs. Hence, wouldn't it be proper to cite a scholarly source that characterizes those teachings as a cult of Christianity? If so, I would not object to the citation being moved from the lead to a section about ministry as suggested by Off2riorob. Indeed, upon reflection, that is where it should go given that it relates to doctrinal disputes among co-religionists.Jibbytot (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just leave it out of the lead altogether, until the rest of the article is complete. We may end up rewriting the lead after that in any case. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
As I say, leaving the cult reference out of the lead is fine by me so long as we can revisit that elsewhere in the article and so long as your suggestion at 21:25 that "His teaching has been criticized by the media and members of the psychiatric profession" (sourced to the citations you mentioned) is included in the lead.Jibbytot (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll rewrite the lead with the agreed bits. I'm fairly sure Off2riorob will be happy with that. Kevin (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am very supportive of the agreement over that and the edit made, I am trying to keep out of the discussion and it seems to be going along well, which is great, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am doing my best to be patient and stand by while you guys are doing your work. It seems that you all, Ali, Kevin and Off2riorob are working very hard to improve this article. I wanted to bring up a sentence that I think needs to be changed in the first paragraph.
"Woroniecki is best known for his influence on Andrea Yates,[6][3] the Texas woman who drowned her five children in 2001."
This is implying that Woroniecki influenced Yates to murder her children. There is nothing that substantiates that. As far as his influence; it is only alleged. Even the source cited at that statement says "...But the connection between Yates’ delusions and Woroniecki’s teachings is nothing more than a media-created fiction, say the two men at the center of the story..."
The word influence is very broad and could mean many things. Who on earth could actually determine what that influence was and how much it was and what it led to? The sentence should read: "Woroniecki is best known for his alleged influence on Andea Yates..." or "Woroniecki is best known for his conection with Andrea Yates who..."
There are many other sources that could confirm the word "alleged" being that Michael Woroniecki clearly denies any negative influence, in print, in the very same ABC interview that is being sourced and also on his son's blog. There is nothing anywhere that legally states Woroniecki is guilty of any influence. It is easy to source that Woroniecki was NOT even at the trial or interviewed by anyone directly working the case "Duke Law Journal" shows no statement by Woroniecki or effort from any party to contact Woroniecki. The opinion of one phsychiatrist, who was chosen to push for the insanity verdict for the defense team, is not enough to permanently link an innocent individual to one of the most horrible murders of the decade. Anything reliable written anywhere mentioning Woroniecki's "Influence" always uses words like "she thinks" or "they believe" or other such statements of opinion not fact. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Note - I have made this change. The word influence does represent an opinion, and the lead does not have enough space to place it within an appropriate context. The section on Yates will make clear the details and nature of the connection. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to use of the word "connection" given your note that the connection will extrapolated upon in the section on Yates.Jibbytot (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
We have stated in the lead how the media characterize Woroniecki's preaching, so I think it appropriate to briefly state how Woroniecki himself describes it, after "fire and brimstone". Something like "...as 'fire and brimstone', and by Woroniecki as fundamentalist Christianity with an adherence to the New Testament.", cited to material he has published. If we can agree on inclusion/exclusion of this then I'd like to collapse this section for now and move on to the article body. Kevin (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. As for my identity, Joshua, it's quite impossible for you to determine that I am "obviously" the same person as the IP commenter as I am not. Indeed, I have previously stated that I am not. If you choose to believe otherwise, then bully for you. Be aware, however, that it's easy to incorrectly ascribe improper motives to others, not unlike I did with respect to Kevin as I initially viewed him as your ally. To his credit, he ignored my comments in that regard and went on with his job. His demonstrated objectivity has convinced me that he is not a shill for you -- the Woronieckis. Hence, Kevin, I apologize for my incorrect contentions vis-a-vis your motives. I look forward to a fair, objective and impartial editing process.Jibbytot (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Why, Joshua, did you remove your allegation that based on proof in your possession and my writing style that I'm obviously a sockpuppet and the same person as the IP commenter? Are you a little shaky now on the obviousness of it all?Jibbytot (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
He didn't, it was me. I felt it was not helpful, as any discussion about motives or identities of editors can be unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, I have the text of the article written by Joshua Woroniecki. I have avoided using it to date as I didn't want the article to become a mishmash of the 2 most extreme positions. If anyone feels it would be useful, I can post it in a subpage for reference. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Music career
This text was provided by Joshua, and I'd like to see whether (some of) it can be added to the article.
Michael Woroniecki began playing music privately in 1986.[1] In the early 1990’s he first performed publicly on the streets of Europe. His first musical production was "Wasser Das Lebens" ("Living Water" in German), a cassette tape with his music and message which Woroniecki freely gave away as the family traveled throughout Europe. Woroniecki played his music in downtown city plazas and centers during the summers of 1992 to 1996; visiting: London, Liverpool, Paris, Barcelona, Lisbon, Rome, Berlin, Salzburg, Budapest, Athens, Moscow, Warsaw among others.[2][3].[4] Woroniecki used the music along with dances and biblical skits as a means of communicating the gospel in countries where they did not speak the language.[4] Michael does not consider himself professional but believes “that music is a powerful tool to touch people of all walks of life”.[1]
During the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games, Woroniecki was seen performing with his family outside the various venues using the event to reach the large, international crowds with his message.[5][1] From 1997 on Woroniecki traveled throughout Mexico and Latin America, playing on the streets in city centers.[3][1]
In 2006 Woroniecki made his first CD " TimeSeizure" with primarily instrumental music. This CD was given out as the family ministered on the college campuses during the ’06 semester. The music is written using keyboards, live samples and computer software.[6] In 2007 the Woroniecki’s self-produced their first bilingual (Spanish-English) CD, "Traveline". They used this CD throughout Central America and parts of South America, giving out a few thousand copies during their missions that year.[1][7]
In 2008-2009 Woroniecki produced both "Measures of a New World" and "Las Alturas De Los Quebrantados" ("The Heights of Lowness" in English). They distributed 5000 copies of "Measures" on universities across the U.S. during the '08 semester. "Las Alturas"was Woroniecki’s largest production in that they gave out over fifteen thousand copies as the family performed and ministered through out Latin America. The music was embraced by the latin culture with Michael and his family receiving an overwhelming response, in person and email, concerning the CD and its message.[1][3][7] In 2009 the family handed out their music at universities as well as major U.S. cities, including New York City.[8][7] Woroniecki does not charge for any of the music he produces. He believes “that freely he has received and freely he will give”. [8]
Comments
I think the Reverbnation references are self-published, so it cannot be used for anything controversial or unduly self-serving. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I will offer more substantive comments later. Initially, however, I perceive that the subject considers his music to be part and parcel of his ministry. Consequently, I would favor adding some non-promotional tidbits about his music in a new section entitled "Ministry" or "Ministerial Activities" and collapsing the information from "Preaching Career" into that section. Additionally, it seems kind of odd to me to call either the preaching or the music section part of a "Career" in the sense of the word being a job for which one is trained. And Mr. Woroniecki does not advocate careers as many of the sources clearly reveal. Rather, he views his life and all of his activities as being a ministry. Thoughts?Jibbytot (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, I edited this section down to make it more concise and to the point. The two GR Press articles that you have can also be used to source this section. See what you think. Including these paragraphs under a heading of "Ministry" along with the information from the current "Preaching Career" could help streamline the whole article. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)::
As it was my suggestion initially, I agree that the "Preaching Career" section should be incorporated along with a less promotional (than those suggested by Joshua Woroniecki and in keeping with sourcing rules) mention of the subject's music ministry. I would think that they -- that is, the preaching and music descriptions -- could be synthesized and restated in a new "Ministerial Activities" section from three to six sentences in length.Jibbytot (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Following on my above comments, I again reviewed the preaching career section. It appears that the subject's ministerial activities will demand a good bit more description than three to six sentences, taking into account his legal difficulties and the background on his activities in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The material on the various arrests and trials is certainly part of the public record. As these events were considered by the subject as part of his ministry and, as he has stated, flow naturally from his message (or its presentation), they must remain a part of the article. Consequently, in thinking through how to approach that it would seem appropriate to subdivide the section on ministerial activities to include legal difficulties resulting from the subject's presentation of his message.Jibbytot (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll come back to this once the Yates bit is done. Unfortunately RL is very busy at the moment, restricting my time somewhat. We do need to look at the sections, as while rewriting them there is a definite lack of focus and flow. What sections do you guys think we should have? My thoughts are something like:
Early years - rename the religious testimony section
Religious training is OK, but we should move the Masters degree bit from the previous section to here.
Preaching career - need to incorporate the music part here.
Religious message - I'd like to remove most of the Yates bit here, as it belongs in the next section.
Connection to Yates - obviously.
Writing it out like that it seems better than I first thought. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
references
^ abcdefMichael and David Woroniecki Bio on Reverb Nation.com"Site"
^"Going for the Gold Steve; Grand Rapids Exile Preaches on at Olympics", Steve Grinczel, The Grand Rapids Press, Aug. 4, 1996
^ abcCite error: The named reference tamw was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ab"Nothing I’d Change", Bruce Nichols, The Dallas Morning News, April 6, 2002"Archive"
^"Did Preacher sway Texas mom?", Tanda Gitmer and Ken Kolker, The Grand Rapids Press, Jan.23,2002“Archive”
^Michael and David Woroniecki on Reverb Nation"Website"
^ abcMusic by Michael Woroniecki: Time Seizure-2002-English, Traveline: ¿Donde Puedes Ir?-2003-Spanish / English, Measures of a New World-2008-English, Las Alturas de los Quebrantados-2009-Spanish / English , Mi Amigo-2009-Instumental, Aperture, 2009-Instrumental
^ ab"Varied Followers share Faith with Campus", The BG News (Bowling Green), Stephanie Guigou, Sept. 25, 2008"Archive"
This may be a really bad suggestion but...
...what about creating a "Controversy" section and making the stuff about Andrea Yates a subsection of that? ALInomnom 12:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of what makes Woroniecki notably controversial is his connection to Yates. I don't see that it should be a sub-section of anything. Kevin (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What gets cited?
I don't think that anyone would dispute that you could use the same sources to write two completely different paragraphs. Or, use different sources at different times. One leaning toward a negative connotation the other towards a positive.
Could someone please explain to me how you guys choose what gets put into the article? Especially in such a complex issue and article. I am sure this goes back to the roots of Wikipedia and the principles you learn as an editor. If you could summarize the process you use it would really help me to understand why certain things are or are not being put into the article. Thank you. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Joshua, you are right that the same sources can slant an article one way or another. Discussing content until everybody can live with the result is our only real tool for dealing with issues such as this. I cannot speak for other editors, but I try and use material from the best quality sources for the majority of the article. For a person such as Woroniecki this means books, then national media coverage, then local media coverage, weighted in that order. Blogs, other web sites, self-published material all should be used as little as possible, and not for controversial information at all. In this case, there being only 2 books, we have to use more media coverage so that we do not give undue weight to O'Malley's or Spencer's writing.
For each source we need to look at the main thrust of what is written: is it generally positive? negative? neutral?. If it is generally positive, then cherry-picking negative bits from it is not neutral. Neither is it neutral to only pick out the good bits from a generally negative article.
For all this though, so far we have only looked in depth at the lead, which really should be the last thing written, as it is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. Kevin (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Kevin. Makes things a little clearer for me. I now understand it's about the priority of sources and to capture the general gist of the source and remain neutral. I think someone mentioned this to me earlier but I did not see it in this context. I appreciate it. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As regards the books being used as primary sources
I understand that a source is used in Wikipedia regardless of all the details of the source when it was orginally written. Nonetheless, it is important for a few things about these books to be understood.
Some comments on O’Malley’s book as regards it’s use as a primary source in this article. I understand that as a book published in and by the mainstream media it will be considered a source. I’m not going to waste my time contradicting that, although in my opinion it is non-neutral and biased when dealing with the subject of Michael Woroniecki, his family and ministry. That being said, here are some things I would ask you to please consider when sourcing both facts and opinions from O’Malley’s book:
1. Are You there Alone? is NOT Michael Woroniecki’s biography. Neither is it Andrea Yates biography. It is a 3rd party’s compilation of their own research resulting in their depiction of the crime and the events surrounding and leading up to it. Therefore, everything presented in the book is seen only from the viewpoint of, in the author’s OPINION, how it relates to the crime. Woroniecki’s history and ministry were not researched for their own sake but rather to find out how they may have had bearing or influence on the tragic circumstances. The author went into the investigation with an understandable personal bias (see 2nd point) and it was that bias that helped her to find what she wanted to find.
2. In the foreword of her book, O’Malley writes, ““One day after the guilty verdict, my reporting regarding the mistaken testimony of a key prosecution witness, Dr. Park Dietz, contributed to a motion for mistrial and grounds for an appeal of Andrea Yates’s conviction……The judge did instruct the jurors to consider the impact of the mistestimony in determining whether to choose death or life in prison as Yates’s punishment. The NEW YORK POST reported on March 22, 2002, that I “saved Yates” from the death penalty.” Are You there Alone? Foreword by Suzanne O’Malley. O’Malley needed to justify her motives in helping Yates escape the death penalty and so she had to find reasons that Yates was not entirely responsible for her own actions. She found Russell Yates, mis-handling of anti-psychotics and, to capitalize on the media hype created by the religious element of the case and the potential profit to her book, she threw in Michael Woroniecki for good measure. Everything that she writes as fact in her connecting Woroniecki to Yates’ state of mind is actually O’Malley’s own assumptions based on personal feelings and reactions that were a result of her own contact with Woroniecki.
3. According to Woroniecki, he never consented to have any of his, what he considered private and personal, conversations with the author published. If O’Malley had the personal contact with and knowledge of both Woroniecki and his family that her writing implies, why did she not obtain his signature on a release form, or some type of consent, as is usual procedure? If her “interviews” with him were on the record with both parties understanding the purpose and outcome of said interviews, why would he not authorize the inclusion of his name and comments? I believe that all of you as editors are well aware of authors who use leading questions to obtain answers that will further their own agenda and best suit their own goals. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's why I noted above that we cannot use this book for everything. Kevin (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly clear. On the other hand, if O'Malley's book is the reference for a third-party's testimony (i.e. O'Malley's book has a quote from a lawyer or someone else) then we should be able to include it as sourced, right? ALInomnom 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a partial response to JW's numbered comments above (I will address each seriatim):
1. Obviously the author, O'Malley, wrote the book within the confines of her personal biases. As a human being, it is impossible to do otherwise. Our viewpoints are necessarily informed by our culture, upbringing, world-view, beliefs (religious and otherwise), training, education, etc. Hence, this point is essentially meaningless unless some sort of unreasonable bias is established by the facts. As explained more fully below, it is not.
2. If one understands the sequence of events with respect to the two Yates trials, one must note that the Texas courts held that the first guilty verdict was materially undermined by false testimony adduced by the prosecution. This testimony was a central part of the trial as it came from an examining psychological professional -- Dr. Dietz -- who was found to have misstated the truth about having seen a similar fact pattern in a prior television show -- Law and Order. This testimony was shown to be false, evidently at least partially based on O'Malley's research. JW jumps from this limited fact universe to the conclusion that O'Malley somehow needed to justify her motives in helping Yates to escape the death penalty by virtue of a retrial. Such logic is nonsensical. Moreover, to ascribe impure motives to the author is without any foundation whatsoever, and certainly with a foundation many orders of magnitude less than the author's evidence that Woroniecki's teachings were indeed a causative factor in Yates' actions. Furthermore, as I read the author's book, which as we must all acknowledge is meticulously well-sourced, I do not at all glean that it's based primarily on her personal feelings and reactions resulting solely from her contact with Woroniecki. Rather, it's based on evidence introduced at trial, including oral testimony, attorney arguments and documentary evidence, as well as facts obtained from a compilation of interviews and/or correspondence with numerous involved parties, including Woroniecki, the lawyers on both sides, and psychological professionals. JW's assertion to the contrary is thus demonstrably false.
3. The contention that failure to obtain consent for publication taints in any way the facts obtained through interviews is specious. Participation in an interview or even a simple conversation establishes consent for any truthful information obtained to be used in any lawful manner. Some sort of release or written consent form is absolutely NOT required. If JW has authority otherwise, I invite him to produce it. If he is simply referring to common decency, well then welcome to the grown-up world. What one says to another person might have unintended consequences if the conversation is not otherwise protected from disclosure by some sort of legal privilege, such as the priest-penitent privilege or the attorney-client privilege. As I noted some days ago, JW repeatedly makes the unsupported allegations that the information contained in the original article is defamatory. He apparently equates defamation merely to information that tends to reflect badly on the subject's character. But this is not the test for libel or slander. All should remember that in the United States at least the truth is an absolute defense to a charge of defamation. Whether a reporter agrees that conversations are on or off the record does not preclude their publication. Note, however, that JW does not even contend that O'Malley agreed that the conversations would be off the record. He simply attempts to cast aspersions on the author's conclusions based on the manner of obtaining the information and the absence of any consent by Woroniecki that the conversations could be used in a publication. Again, this is not illegal or otherwise improper in any legal sense. Also, JW's attempt to appeal to the editors' suspicions about leading questions is equally misplaced. If what Woroniecki revealed is accurately reproduced by O'Malley, then that is all that matters. There is no stronger evidence than direct proof of an admission. Finally, let me posit my own question, if O'Malley had disclosed for what purpose she would use the information obtained from Woroniecki, would he have been more or less likely to be as forthcoming as he apparently was? The question is rhetorical.
I apologize for such a long retort, but I felt is was necessary to the extent any editor could be mislead through dissembling and pretense.Jibbytot (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Religious Testimony section
I've done some rewriting of this section, I think the major change is removing the paragraph about the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, for which I could not find a source. It is briefly mentioned by O'Malley, but not enough to use here. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the rewrite, except that if I'm not mistaken CMU won the MAC in 2009.Jibbytot (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, upon looking again at the article it's a little confusing. CMU appears to have won the MAC in 2009/10, but the article seems to conflate the DII national championship with winning the MAC. It appears Northwest Missouri State won the championship this past year so this year wouldn't change the article. Perhaps it should be reworded to state that CMU was the MAC champion that year and went on to win the DII football national championship if that turns out to be the case. If not, then the statement should be removed.Jibbytot (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) According to this cite -- http://www.d2football.com/champions/10/ -- CMU was national champion in 1973. To make it clear, then, I suggest stating the operative sentence this way: "The same year, Woroniecki and his teammates went on to win the Division II Football National Championship for the only time in CMU's history.[16]"Jibbytot (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have already made a change, but perhaps you could rewrite the sentence, as my knowledge of the intricacies of American college football is zero. Kevin (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. However, I don't yet know how to hyperlink words. The NCAA and Division II both have Wiki articles that could be linked.Jibbytot (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Grand Rapids Press
Does anyone watching here have access to clippings or scans of the articles that have been cited? Their NewsBank archive does not go back that far, and their own reprint service is very expensive. The reprints on rickross.com I will use unless there is reason to believe they are not true transcripts. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I will obtain the actual articles from microfiche as I'm concerned about earlier article deletions of assertions based on their content. I will then scan them and email them to you or upload them if that is feasible on here.Jibbytot (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I emailed PDF copies of thirteen articles/editorials/letters to the editor from the Grand Rapids Press and one article from Grand Rapids Magazine.Jibbytot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll explain my further thoughts on using these sources. In the work I have done to date, I have come across many instances of sources being misquoted, sources totally not supporting statements, and large conclusions drawn from minor reference sections. I suspect that much of this is because the article text was written first, and the sources added later on a best fit basis, with no real attempt to rewrite the text to follow the sources, as I have been attempting to do. Going forward, I will be extremely reluctant to retain content sourced to references I cannot easily obtain, and that others cannot easily check. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I now have copies of 2 articles from Grand Rapids Press.
Grinczel, Steve (1996-08-04). "Grand Rapids exile preaches on at Olympics". The Grand Rapids Press. pp. C4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Grinczel, Steve (August 1992 (date cropped out)). "Street Preacher kicked out of GR goes for the gold". The Grand Rapids Press. pp. A1 & A4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
The first details Woroniecki's activities at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, 5 paragraphs of background bio, and 3 paragraphs on being arrested in Morocco. The second gives a small amount of detail about activities at the 1992 Barcelona olympics, and a great deal of biographical information. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Connection to Andrea Yates
I've started on this section now. Figure if I get this out of the way then the rest is less pressing. I have deliberately ignored both the original version of this article, and the version Joshua sent me, as neither are a very good description of the events. To date, I have covered the Yates-Woroniecki relationship up to 2001. It probably needs a sentence or 2 describing Andreas relationship with the Woronieckis.
I think the next paragraph should be a brief run down of Andreas mental health issues prior to June 2001, followed by a sentence or so on the killings, arraignment and the trial starting. What do others think? It seems that only after the trial began did the media connect Yates and Woroniecki.
Next we need to describe 3 separate issues:
How the media characterized Woronieckis involvement
Mentions of Woroniecki in the actual trial
Michaels reaction to the whole issue.
I think the trial mentions should probably be in a paragraph of their own, and I'm not sure how the present the rest yet.
Are there any other najor areas of the Yates-Woroniecki connection that need to be addressed? Kevin (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I generally like how the re-write is proceeding. And in view of that, it might be a bit premature to offer the following thoughts, as you appear to have a good grasp of the facts as iterated in the sources. With that said, and in the context of Andrea's mental state, the sources well document that Michael Woroniecki's ministry and doctrine had a material adverse effect on Andrea Yates' state of mind. Some of this would appear to me to be appropriate for inclusion in the part you've written with respect to the contacts between the Yates and the Woronieckis. For example, the Charlie Gibson interview on Good Morning America of March 27, 2002, expounds on the subject's conversations with the Yates during the relevant time period, to wit:
From the tape sent to the Yates in 1996
Woroniecki: "Multitudes upon multitude of are going to hell, and what God doesn't give a hoot about your little selfish affluent self orientated world."
Gibson: "In 1988, 1999, I'm not sure what the year was, they visited you in Florida, and you told them according to Andrea Yates, that they were going to hell." Did you tell them they were going to hell?
Woroniecki: Yeah. Of course.
Gibson: Why?
Woroniecki: Over 10 to 15 years, because they're going to hell, everybody is going to hell, you're going to hell...
Gibson: I would like to think not.
This interview occurred on live television and in it the subject clearly answers in the affirmative that he told the Yates they were going to hell (over a period of 10-15 years). I can obtain an audio recording of that interview but I suspect that it's available on the net.
Moreover, a contemporaneous letter from the subject to the Yates is discussed by both Suzy Spencer in her book at p. 143 and by O'Malley in her book at p. 32: July 1998 (date from O'Malley p. 32) -- "I have no idea how things are going with you, but I know you must get right with God before it's too late. The window of opportunity that God has opened up for you at this time through us will only stay open for a certain time..... All the rebuke and sharing that went on between us was intended to effect your souls for salvation. If you allow Satan to come in and 'steal the understanding' the consequences will be tragic."
O'Malley then concludes at p. 57 as follows: "That doctors had documented a possible 'component of delusional guilt' as early as 1999 was an understatement with what was going on with Andrea Yates. More specifically, what was going on between Andrea and the Woronieckis. Rusty had told doctors he thought the patient 'may be struggling with the concept of salvation' This insight proved to be another warning that was ignored. Andrea was indeed struggling with the concept of Salvation. And according to Michael and Rachel Woroniecki, her time was running out."
O'Malley p. 229 also discusses a videotape that the subject sent to the Yates in 1996:
"Jesus said--all man--is wicked, but Jesus does single out one group---children. He singles out children, and he says, 'and whoever receives one such child in my name receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble (Dr. Resnick: "Cause someone to stumble, you mean that, like on the path of righteousness? Andrea: "Yes", O'Malley p. 152) it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.'" Woroniecki paused. " 'You mean Jesus, you're saying to kill yourself?' he asked rhetorically, eyes dead ahead in to the camera. "Yeah," Woroniecki answered. "That's reality."
O'Malley then reports Rusty Yates' impression of the subject's effect on Andrea Yates, p. 248: "Andrea has high standards for herself...and feels a lot of guilt when she doesn't meet those standards. Michael Woroniecki's 'Live as we do or perish' mentality hadn't been good for her... I think that hurt her."
Accordingly, I don't think it's correct to imply that Rusty Yates felt Michael's influence had waned during the pertinent time period. At the very least, he made inconsistent statements and this should be noted. Moreover, and perhaps this is more appropriate for one of the sub-paragraphs you envision, the conclusions drawn by others as to the Woroniecki's influence should be noted in the article in the sense that they appear uniformly to state that Michael Woroniecki's personal ministry and doctrine had a material adverse effect on Andrea Yates' state of mind.Jibbytot (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try and finish this section today. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kevin,
About the sentence "Images of Woroniecki wearing a Devil costume were shown on national TV.": The issue of the mask (not a "costume") does not seem relevant in the context of the Yates trial. The problem with mentioning the mask in the legal context is that it implies this was part of the reasoning of the trial and, or, that it was of common usage in Michael’s ministry and so affected Andrea Yates. None of this is accurate.
The fact is that a Houston resident, David Delaisla, contacted both the local (Houston TV stations) and national news outlets (Good Morning America) claiming to be an ex-follower and offered to do interviews and show them a clip from a video tape he had of Michael wearing a Satan mask. This was the source of the media hype surrounding the mask. Mr. Delaisla was proud to have his name publicly known and mentioned, along with the names of the lawyers, authors and other individuals, as someone privy to the case. By attaching himself to the notoriety that Michael Woroniecki was receiving from the Yates case, Delaisla appeared on Good Morning America and other programs capitalizing on his self-proclaimed identity of an “ex-follower”. It was this individual who supplied, and emphasized the importance of, the mask video clip along with many other negative images and statements that were then circulated by the media as relevant facts.
Of course, Delaisla failed to explain how the Satan mask was a part of the extreme measures necessary in Woroniecki’s street ministry to communicate the Christian teaching on the Biblical doctrines of hell and Satan to countries such as Russia and the Czech Republic, where they did not speak or write the language. It was not a "costume" but simply a mask which they still use in overseas ministry.
The mask has absolutely nothing to do with the Yates’ case. It was never a part of Woroniecki’s contact with Rusty or Andrea. If wearing this mask was a common part of Michael's minstry, outside of ministering in Europe, then it would be documented in the countless articles and photos that have reported on his preaching history across the country. Obviously, this video clip was intentionally fed to the media for the purpose of portraying Michael as someone who chased people down the street dressed like Satan and that, AFTER Andrea committed the crime, these images somehow influenced her.
If it still seems necessary to mention it, then this should be placed in, and explained in, the context of all the other props, like magic, dances, skits, comedy masks and music, used by the family in their ministry in Europe.
In regards to mentioning the Perilous Times article, I am providing a reference which should be cited in order to provide the exact message and context of the article upon which the officials of the court made their statements.
The devil mask is certainly one critical and noteworthy aspect of how the media presented Woroniecki and his influence on Yates. Moreover, Kevin, to remove any citations and/or references to the devil mask, and to have already removed the quotes by Cuomo and O'Malley pertaining to the devil mask, is to succumb to revisionist history. Finally, perhaps I missed it, but where is the citation to where Woroniecki notes that his use of the devil mask was to overcome language difficulties in Europe? And if that was the case, why did Delaisla have a copy of the videotape in Houston? Not a lot of language difficulties there.Jibbytot (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don’t want to prolong this issue any more than necessary. The facts are stated very clearly in my previous statement. To clarify however, the tape that David Delaisla obtained was a copy of a tape that Woroniecki made to show his friends, showing Woroniecki and his family ministering on the streets of Europe where they occasionally used the mask. Delaisla isolated certain times where Woroniecki or one of his family members wore the mask to depict Satan’s role in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The media viewed the tape after the Yates trial. It was Delaisla who made the misrepresentation that the viewing of this image had played a role in the trial. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent Deletions
I am starting a new topic so as to not interrupt the discussion about the material being added.
Wikipedia guidelines state:
"In some cases subjects may become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material.”
and
“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced- whether the material is negative, positive, neutral or just questionable- should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.”
First, let me offer you my apologies, Kevin, if my edits cause you any additional hassle in your work process of this article. I understand that some of the material that I deleted may be re-added in some way in the future. I have no problem with that as long they are chosen amongst all the other sources by an administrator for necessary content. Until that time comes, it is necessary for them to be removed because of the damage they directly cause to living persons.
Michael Woroniecki is a living person whom Wikipedia guidelines state is endowed with benefit of the doubt status. Michael Woroniecki and his family have suffered greatly, as any individual would suffer, from vicious accusations. For this reason alone there is no constructive purpose in allowing further and prolonged means of this suffering.
The motive of the one individual who has continually sought to prolong and torment this process has clearly been exposed. Kevin is the one who investigated this person’s other anti-Woroniecki posts and stated that this person has a “personal crusade” against Woroniecki. Therefore any of this person’s comments cannot even be considered as objective evaluation but only as personal accusation. Regardless of their attempt to sound intellectual and sophisticated, the end game of their comments are always the same and quite predictable; against anything neutral or positive and for anything negative and degrading.
There is a fear that, in Wikipedia’s desire to be all inclusive in it’s processes, the editors will allow such an individual to prevent a reasonable conclusion of resolution due to his constant anti-Woroniecki dissemination of irrelevant matters and thus ultimately bully his own agenda. Surely this person will instantly react to my edits by either reverting to his previous copy or ranting and raving with his “intellectual” jargon.
I would plead with the editors to see beyond this endless ploy of nonsense and consider that Woroniecki has endured these debasing statements, especially from this Toronto source, for some seven years!!! There is no logic in the choice of documenting these specific degrading comments which, by the way, were made by whom originally? Regardless of the fact that the Toronto cite is a reliable source, it still makes no sense to have such a place in this article. It was only chosen because of its extremely negative content. Surely The HOUSTON CHRONICLE and THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, among other U.S. sources, should have priority over a random article from some city in Canada.
As you have all witnessed, I have been extremely patient and cooperative in this process. However, is there not a period of time in any reasonable person’s mind when enough is enough? It is going on five months since I originally contacted Wikipedia concerning this article! With our ministry active at various summer events here in the States, we are now more concerned about higher visitation on the Wikipedia page. Woroniecki has a ministry to continue and uphold and such demeaning comments (as seen from the quotes from the Toronto paper) have only the weight of a “journalist” outside of the United States and clearly biased against Woroniecki with whom he had no contact whatsoever.
Due to the above arguments, I would plead with the editors to stand back and reevaluate things so as to finalize this article. All things considered it would seem only consistent with Wikipedia guidelines to owe such edits as I have made to Woroniecki for the lack of any regulation whatsoever over this page for the last seven years! JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Notes on recent edits
I am going to begin working this article into the direction that it needs to go. One of the major problems on this article is that it is written entirely about Michael Woroniecki's past, and on top of that, most of it was/is wrong. Michael Woroniecki is a living person and currently very active in his ministry. This article needs to reflect that.
The obvious assumption is that I am going to try to slant this article in favor of Michael Woroniecki. I am not. I have monitored this article very closely on a daily basis for the past 4 months. I have worked very hard to remain nuetral, adhere to the Wiki-Guidlines and work with the administrators. Removing highly biased, inflamatory and negative material is not slanting something in someones favor. It is simply estabilishing a NPOV, which is what we all want. Any assumption that positive material should not be included along side the negative material would imply that only negative information should be written in this article. Obviously that is not nuetral or non-biased. Please post any objections here on the discussion page and we will talk about it and work towards a medium ground.
I see that you've been largely successful in getting your POV and doctrine inserted here, Joshua. Kevin completely relinquished all edits to you and washed his hands of ensuring that this page is neutral. What happened here, Kevin? And congratulations Joshua. Jibbytot (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Jibbytot
Article issues
The tone of some text in the article is way out of line for a BLP. Major theological positions are depicted in a way that construes them as being intrinsic to him (e.g., "Woroniecki cites various Scripture verses in his pamphlets to substantiate his message that only by faith can a man be saved from hell and reconciled to God." when referring to the soteriological position known as sola fide, or "Woroniecki considers the Scriptures inerrant and authoritative on all matters of life." when referring to biblical inerrancy). Moreover, there are characterizations mixed into the biographical text (i.e., "Woroniecki states that he was known to his teammates as "Crazy War", who often looked to him "for stimulation of insanity."") that appear to make insinuations in support of the theory that Woroniecki caused the Yates incident. — C M B J 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The matters to which you make reference were written entirely by the subject's son, Joshua Woroniecki, who was given free reign by Kevin and the Wikipedia editors to craft the entry however he wished. It would thus appear that Mr. Woroniecki wears the "Crazy War" nom de plume with pride and that he certainly doesn't consider that it or the words "stimulation of insanity" support the argument that he caused Andrea Yates to kill her children. Indeed, as Joshua Woroniecki wrote most of the text, it would appear that he believes it does just the opposite.Jibbytot (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent Edits
I agree with CMBJ's comments and took a minute to implement his suggestions into the article. Also just did a little bit of editing, removing redundancies, adding hyperlinks and basically worked to make the overall article more precise and readable. There was some text in there that was irrelevant to Woroniecki's BLP so I deleted it and then combined various paragraphs. Also I substituted some words and adjectives for ones that were less biased. Appreciate your input, CMBJ, thanks.
Hi , I am still watching this article and noticed this IP address replacing.. ..itinerant street preacher - well one persons isp is an-others .. - independent, non-denominational Christian missionary - as I understand our BNLP guidelines - the less attacking phraseology is preferable. If others object or dispute I am wiling to discuss though. Off2riorob (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
i·tin·er·ant
īˈtinərənt,iˈtin-
adjective
1.
traveling from place to place.
Itinerant preacher simply means a preacher who travels from place to place, which is the M.O of the preacher. He lives with his family in a mobile home pulled by a diesel truck to do this. It's also the term used to describe him in several major media articles formerly cited but removed when this article was allowed to be sabotaged by the family. He has no church nor localized church supporting him. He has no ordination from any church or institution. In fact, he protests "church is a joke" according to the sign his family holds in clip provided in this article: http://www.theslateonline.com/article/2013/10/jesus-banners-wave-at-su Allowing him or his family to re-edit this article to convey an image of mainstream normalcy and acceptance facilitates deceit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.49.42 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The source cited was a blog. Wherever else the author may have written, this is not a reliable source. Per WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Per everything I wrote under ‘Associated Content’ above, I understand your concern now over poorly sourced material. Turns out the Everyday Christian.com blog, that the original contributor used as the source for that material, was taken from Wellman’s original article that was published in OVI Magazine, which is not self-published and does have submission guidelines. So, the original article still exists and is now the source for that content. I believe my above comments as far as the source's reliability depending on the gravity of the material also apply to this edit.
Also, since Wikipedia accepts self-published sources from the subject of a BLP and the quote that Wellman uses is on Woroniecki’s website, I added a cite there for the website as the source for the quote. That should clear it up. JesHelpin (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia accepts blog sources written by the subject in BLPs for very little: Primarily basic uncontested biographical facts. A midlevel Hollywood type hasn't had their birth date and hometown show up in a reliable source? Fine, cite them mentioning it on their blog. Currently, we're using the subjects statements about himself to include a lot more than that: self-serving claims, trivia, etc. I'm going to start cleaning that out as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
