Talk:The Purpose Driven Life/Archive 1

Archive 1

User 68.121.254.253

This page obviously needs to be monitored because user 68.121.254.253 has a heart on for this book and the author Rick Warren, since this user has been deleting the criticism sections of the articles entirely and bolding lines of the articles as to make it some kind of sales pitch for the book.

--67.160.187.216 12:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

Doesn't it seem a little NonNPOV to have 17 links to criticize the book and only 5 links to pages that support it. Seems a little lopsided. I know that if it were the other way around, there would be all kinds of remarks about the article not being POV. Seems like all the articles related to Christianity have a more than healthy dose of criticism. --Icj tlc 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessarily NonNPoV to have more negative external links than positive. If there is more negative information available than positive (of research quality) then it is natural that there would be more negative content in the Wiki article. On the other hand, we do need to be careful not to use this - or any - Wiki article as a soapbox (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) by loading it with unbalanced information, no matter how noble we consider our agenda to be: this brings the whole process into disrepute and does no good in the long run. As it stands, I think the article seems a little negative, but not in an unbalanced way. The Rick Warren article contains considerably more positive material so on the whole I think we're OK. BreathingMeat 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and after re-reading my entry, I see how it might have been misunderstood, I apologize. I intentionally did not change the article becasue I don't want to start an edit war with those that are opposed to the teachings of Rick Warren (see above entries). All I was trying to say is that this article seems lopsided, perhaps it should be renamed Criticism of the Purpose Driven Life. The book and other venues of Purpose Driven Ministry have done a lot of good for a lot of people and I just think it's sad that that isn't represented here. Comments welcome on my talk page. Icj tlc 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be opposed to a name change of that magnitude. If you were to add something, in good faith, what would it be. Realistically, significantly more could be added about the content of the book without violating copyright. Or, maybe something about its impact on American Christianity and culture. Although the criticism is substantial, it has been culled, and with some thought, it may be possible to cull it somemore. But taken as a whole, the article seems fairly well-balanced to me. Even so, the criticism in the article is legitimate, even if it paints Mr. Warren and the book in a bad light. Your criticism is legitimate as well, and with a good faith effort, I think more content could be added without creating an edit war. Regards, Steven McCrary 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Steven's comment. The answer is not to give the article a more limited name, but to make the article less limited. If some positive material of an encyclopedic quality were added, there is no legitimate reason for an edit war to ensue. BreathingMeat 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Search for This

For those of you able do a google search I recommend searching the following keywords: "robert shuler" and "new age" and "rick warren".

Someone should expand on the similarities, and influences not immediately obvious. Could you see Paul or Peter promoting this kind of book? Anything that appeals to the masses is usually a huge red flag in my book - especially in this day and age.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 204.225.191.55. Andrewa 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous suggestion

There is no direct link between Warren and Shuller or new age philosophy (read the Wikipedia section on New Age and you will find no similarities). These are assertions of misinformed bloggers whose slander has been repeated so often that it now appears to be fact. This sort of entry has no place in an encyclopedia and goes against the BLP policy.

NPOV Query

When I was perusing this page, I noticed that in the 3rd paragraph in the criticisms section, involving secular criticisms, the article seemed to violate the NPOV policy by stating several criticisms as fact, rather then the views held by some, giving the impression that the article was purporting one view over another. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would remedy this, removing this comment as well.

I think the third paragraph is the best, containing properly referenced material instead of weasely stuff such as "Many Christians believe" and "Critics say". As I read it, the existing text seems to clearly be summarising points made in the Business Week article, rather than presenting an editor's personal opinion as fact. BreathingMeat 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ANY NON CRITICISM?

How about add a section on what this book has done for people (there are many stories, how about the lady that stoped a serial killer in part by reading him some of this book, great story i listened to her book on tape, amazing really). this would balance out the criticism section that easily finds itself on religion articles. information should be balanced. clayClayscot 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

==Hyphenation Sentence zapped?== I just noticed that someone (BreathingMeat?) got rid of the statement I made about lack of hyphenation in the book's title and its frequent hyphenization on bestseller lists. True, I didn't have a source cited, but I could dig one up pretty easily. What is the rationale not to include that comment? If there is none, I'm putting it back.KConWiki 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding Disputed Tag

After taking Fidas Viva's advise to read and study all Purpose Driven related articles "carefully, slowly and prayerfully," I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the crticisms were posted by him. Also, the list of crticisms here are almost a carbon copy of the criticisms on the Rick Warren page. Also based on several of Fides Viva's comment both on the talk page and in the article itself, such as "If you have nothing constructive to add to the Criticism section such as articles and essays exposing Rick Warren as the false teacher he is and all the Scripture twisting and false teaching he has in the Purpose Driven® Life book," and "The following articles, essays and audios deal with these and other concerns regarding the Purpose Driven® Life movement particularly, and Rick Warren's teachings in general," and after reading several of the article's listed in this section, I've found that the majority of them are criticisms of Rick Warren and his teachings in general, not specifically, the Purpose Driven Life book, which is the subject of this article. Rick Warren has an article in WikiPedia and criticisms of him or his teachings should be posted there. ONLY criticisms of the Purpose Driven Life book itself should be posted on this page. Also, as listed in above comments, the alleged "Occultic" and "Forbidden" practices are not taought in the PurposeDriven Life book. Whether they are "Occultic," "Forbidden," or in fact even taught by Rick Warren should be discussed elsewhere, the fact is, they are not mentioned anywhere in the Purpose Driven Life book itself. Will add more to this section later. Icj tlc 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Icj, Here are my concerns:

• I am not sure how to separate Rick Warren from the teachings in PDL, since that work is one of his most widely published. Seems to me that most of the referenced articles regard PDL.
• I have not looked at all of the references, but if none of them deal with occultic practice, remove the text.
• I had a similar discussion regarding the Bill O'Reilly page, that is, which page should criticisms be placed, the page about him, or the page about his show (The O'Reilly Factor). There was no consensus on that page, so must of the criticism remained on The Factor page. Seems to me that the criticism should be on one page or the other, not both. I am inclinded to leave PDL criticism on this page, remove it from the other page, and place a note on the other page to that effect.
• On the other hand, I do agree that some of the criticisms on this page seem directed at Warren and not at the book. This article is not the place for those criticisms, and should be moved from this page.

Thanks, SteveMc 22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My biggest issue here isn't that Rick Warren and his work are being critisized, as I said in every entry I've made on this talk page, I do not agree 100% with Rick Warren or his theology. My issue is that the teachings that Fides Viva is critisizing (whether they are occultic or forbidden not withstanding) are not taught in the Purpose Driven Life. It's that plain and simple. My other issue is, as you stated, the critisisms should be on one page, not every page affiliated with Rick Warren. From what I have seen, the critisism section on his page and here are almost identical. The order of a few things are changed around, but the links are the same. If you want to critisize Rick Warren, do it on that article, if you want to critisize PDL, than do it here. Not both. I am not here to push my POV, I just want this to be an accurate article worthy of WikiPedia's standards, right now, it's not. There are 3 paragraphs covering the history of the book, with 1 paragraph describing the content of the book, 5 links to websites affiliated with Rick Warren/PDL, 21 links to critisisms, and 0 links to sites that support the book and/or ministry of Rick Warren, although the first paragraph states that this book is the most influential to ministers. But people keep telling me that it sounds balanced to them, so I don't know. Icj tlc 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed all the ad hominem arguments I could from the "Criticisms" section. I've also removed the mega-churches comment, which I believe should go under Rick Warren's other popular book, The Purpose Driven Church (which curiously has the same criticism about it). --JDitto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pupose.jpg

Image:Pupose.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Dennet

I don't see a need to have the criticism from Daniel Dennet in this article. Dennet is a well known atheist and he would have criticism of any Christian book. So, there is nothing special about this criticism nor does it directly apply to the book. I suggest the paragraph get removed. CarverM (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi CarverM - I came here after the minister of my Church said that we would be studying this book in a few weeks time, and wanted to read up about it. I also had a spot check on the history of the article, and noticed the Daniel Dennet comments ... once incorrectly sourced and once not sourced at all ... had twice been removed, which sent me off to see what he had to say. I've also looked around on the internet and seen that it is controversial, but mainly from Christians - amazon.com 1* reviews for example (not notable enough for here!) I put it back in because I thought it seemed valid criticism in that it told you more about the book (or rather Rick Warren's theology). He was talking about the book in the piece he did. I don't think you can exclude it because he's an atheist, but the thought has just struck me that maybe I put it in because I was aiming for balance. The second point about rationality and religion is surely the same point Robert Price is making in his book (again I haven't read this book either), although that's not made explicit in this section. I can see that Daniel's comments do seem to be overly long, and he's named for a few minutes of video whereas Robert Price isn't and he's written a book because of this book! I'm all for making things as concise as possible.

Perhaps a general comment about rationality and religon and reference this to Robert Price and Daniel Dennet would suffice? Edgepedia (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Faith and rationality could possiblily be linked as the argument. Edgepedia (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the criticism of Warren by Dennett at the TED conference was aimed at Warren in general, not this book. So, I don't see it appropriate to take a criticism aimed at the person and not at the specific content of the book, which Dennett did not do. CarverM (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Gulp) I remember Daniel standing in front of quotes from this book. I'm going to have to watch it again. Edgepedia (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Dennet was using the ideas of the PDL book to attack Warren on several fronts, primarily evolution vs creationism but I seem to remember his main point was simply a belief in God did not jive with science. So, again, I don't think his criticism was directly at the book, just general beliefs of Christians. So, you are not necessarily wrong in thinking he was attacking the book because it was a prop in his argument. CarverM (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Ive been to chapter 14 so far and that same chapter tells me how Jesus saved me.

The criticism says its inaccurately expressed.

Just wanted to mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.173.61 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section changes

I removed several "criticisms" (and one defense) from the Criticisms section from blog/self-published sources. The remaining criticism (which is often echoed in self-published sources and public commentaries) deals with Warren's "translation shopping".--Lyonscc (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Books are reliable sources, sources are not required to be available electronically or free of charge, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I've added the full book discription, this seemed to be missing. The summerized opinion of a book (The Reason Driven Life) published in response to this book/course/teachings needs to be in this article. Edgepedia (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You also said that the sentence about Satan seems NPOV. I can't see that, it looks like its attributing an opinion to Price. Can you say what seems NPOV to you? Edgepedia (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because a book is published does not make an opinion in it notable. When it is being used as a primary source of criticism, when no electronically available reliable sources exist, care should be taken in inclusion of such opinions, which may WP:FRINGE. In the case of Christian books, just to stay parallel with this particular example, almost every 'popular' Christian author has detractors in other denominations who believe his/her orthodoxy is of satan, and many of them (briefly) try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for this. (For example, though not in this particular case, Calvinists frequently try to "warn" everyone about non-Calvinist authors.)

In this particular case, there are multiple issues with this source/addition: 1)the work in question is from a minor publishing house that does not specialize in Chritianity or apologeticsl; 2) this particular "criticism" is not echoed in other electronically available, verifiable sources; 3) It is a paraphrase, not a quote, which is often indicative of Original Research; 4) The paraphrase includes charges of heresy and psychological damage, which would reasonably considered to be a controversial statement, worthy of rigorous sourcing.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, to note that I'm trying to be neutral here, I did not remove Price's criticism of Warren's "translation-shopping", as this is a common criticism of Warren in a wide variety of sources, though these sources are not generally "verifiable" because they are self-published from lay and clergy members of various churches. It's a common criticism, so citing Price's criticism of the same does not appear to be WP:FRINGE or so controversial as to require sounder sourcing.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again, but I'll answer you for the last time. First Bold, Revert, Discuss means that if you change something and it's reverted, the revert stays while it's being discussed on the talk page. And those were not duplicate references, it's a valid way of referencing books without repeating everything; the current references are incomplete without publisher, year, isbn etc. References have been made to page numbers and these can change for example between paperback and hardbook.

Considering your concerns; [1] Has Price self-published the work? (No) Does he know his stuff in this field? (According to his Wikipedia page, I think probably yes). Published reviews of books are normally added, and the views of a book published in response should be noted. [2] This doesn't matter, it's verifiable from the book [3] Paraphasing, done correctly, is not OR. If it was we would not be able to write any article as we can't quote wholesale from sources that a copyright violation. We need to paraphase. [4] Reference to a book IS rigorous sourcing.

You may not have the book (I don't), but if something references a book we need to assume good faith that the author summerized the text accurately unless we have contary evidence. Purely relying the internet for your research is not good practice when someone's gone to the expense and bother of looking something up in a book.

I shall leave this matter here, but when I researched this a couple of years ago I got the idea that this work is controversial in some areas, for example see [1]. I don't get that idea from this article. Edgepedia (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of theological discussions get to the point where one ends up discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm very familiar with criticisms of PDL, particularly in Calvinist corners, and there are a number I agree with (though I'm not one to quickly jump from "I disagree with this" to "this is heresy", in general). There is somewhat of a cottage industry of Calvinists "warning" people about Warren/PDL (w/ the link you provided being an example of one such site), and a more broad perception that PDL is rather shallow and that the finer points Warren sometimes makes are done via version-shopping. The statement I removed, though, was rather novel (as criticisms of PDL go), and very likely WP:FRINGE. While I agree that paraphrase is necessary within Wikipedia, when making rather controversial/critical claims, it is best to have an easily verifiable source or quotations to avoid POV-pushing. As it is, in almost 5 years of editing WP pages, I have yet to see someone paraphrase a critical claim from a book (agreeing or disagreeing with my person POV) in a NPOV manner. Yes, we should AGF, but experience has shown that "trust, but verify" is how such instances work.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Upon reading this article, this article looked more like it was written as a persuasive article rather than one meant merely to inform. It looks like most of the positive news were crammed into the lengthy introduction, ending with a single negative point. Then all the negative points were given it's own section, totally making little of Reverend Billy Graham's recommendation from the start. Some of the arguments don't even have to do with the book, but with the author and his other book! (Which I've already removed, by the way.) So it begs the question, is this really NPOV?

I also read about the criticisms about redemption, especially "failing to accurately represent the nature of sin, repentance and hell and the blood sacrifice of God's son Jesus as the means to be forgiven by God for sins and allow man to have a relationship with God". Not only was this lacking in reference, but in The Purpose Driven Lifethe book, it says:

"When he paid for our sins on the cross, the veil on the temple that symbolized our separation from God was split from top to bottom, indicating that direct access to God was once again possible." (Page 86, Paragraph 2, 2nd sentence)

It's described fairly, isn't it? For now, I'll keep it on. If no one finds a reason to keep this, I'll take it out. --JDitto 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Selective use of various translations

We have, "...some contend that when citing Scripture, Warren jumps from one Bible version to another, cherry-picking whichever paraphrase or translation supports whatever point he attempts to convey. The practice of using translations selectively is defended by others.", but the citation given (http://www.smalltownpastor.com/archive/12.asp) is defending the use of translations per se, but the point being made is not that Warren uses translations, but that he picks and chooses between any one of 15 different translations to find the one that suits the point he (and not necessarily the scripture) wants to say there. So I suggest that second sentence about 'others' defending the selective use of various translations should go, unless we find a citation that really does say that. Jinlye (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticisms run deeper and wider than just using different Bible translations. During almost every one of her programs, Frances Swaggart criticizes Rick Warren/Purpose Driven Life.

http://www.francesandfriends.com/category/rick-warren/

Also, false doctrine scholar Dave Hunt is also very critical. I've never read the book and do not attend a "Purpose Driven Church." The criticisms need to be addressed in the article. johncheverly 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) http://www.thebereancall.org/search/node/Purpose%20Driven%20Lifejohncheverly 19:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request has been filed.johncheverly 19:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• As long as you cite it with RS and write it in a neutral manner, you can pretty much add whatever you want. You don't really have to file a dispute resolution over it. Nobody has really edited this page for a long time, at least nobody other than myself and I don't mind someone else taking the time to do the editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Not a forum

I have removed some comments that would best be described as forum posts. Please understand that this is not a forum to discuss religion in general and all conversations here should be limited to improving the page for TPDL. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proof Read

I added a 'background' section for some information I found (since I didn't think it fit well anywhere else). I do not know if that is a good name choice or not, but would like to know.
Also, I added some citations (some additional, and some for un-cited text).
I did my best to try and find a good source for the billy graham quote in the influence section (cited two sources), but could not find a source that looked very good.
If those were not a good choice, what should I do? Valid Validity (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Billy Graham quote citations I placed, I decided they did not look like good sources.
I could not find any primary sources for that quote, although plenty of websites contain it and different portions of it.

If anyone could find a primary source for it that would be good.
I believe that it is genuine, and have no plans on deleting it, but it is right for it to be sourced. Valid Validity (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It sold 50 million copies, not 32 million?

It was published in 2002, it had sold 18 million copies by 2008 https://www.wayoflife.org/database/a-review-of-purpose-driven-life.php

ie it was initially selling at around 3 million copies per year.

It had sold 32 million in its first decade, by 2012. That's still around 3.2 million copies a year. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/54912-purpose-driven-life-gets-a-10th-anniversary-makeover-pw-talks-with-rick-warren.html

This wikipedia article says it's sold 32 million copies by 2019. It also (erroneously) says "over 30 million copies sold by 2007". If that 2007 figure is the case, it sold like hotcakes for 5 years and then basically nothing for the next decade and a half.

It's far more likely that it kept going at something between half and double of the three million a year. If it kept going at the same 3M per year it would be at (3x8)+18 = 42M copies by 2020.

That makes this reference of sales of 50M in English by 2020 quite plausible:

"Warren, 66, who has more than 11 million social media followers, has written eight books including “The Purpose Driven Life,” which has sold nearly 40 million copies in English, according to Publisher’s Weekly.

According to Zondervan, the book’s publisher, “The Purpose Driven Life” is still selling millions of copies 17 years after it was released, and it just passed 50 million sold in English."

https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/12/saddleback-church-pastor-rick-warrens-easter-message-during-coronavirus-pandemic-on-faith-that-works-when-life-doesnt/

I'll get rid of the nonsense 2007 figure and add in the more plausible 2008, 2012, and 2020 figures instead.

Wikipedia really need to get better with book sales figures. This is about the fifth best-selling book I've found wildly out of date or not-credible book sales estimates for. I'd rather get accurate answers the first time I go to wikipedia rather than always having to do the search myself :)

This is also important for the best-seller list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Skeptical voices

There does seem to be some scepticism about these numbers though. http://wmcgrew.blogspot.com/2014/02/rick-warren-and-truth.html

More sources for 50M in sales

Publisher Simon & Schuster are going with the 50M figure. https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Rick-Warren/39904606

Time magazine are going with the 50M as well http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884038,00.html

50M is also the number the author is going with on his LinkedIn page, as I write: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pastorrickwarren/

Lauchlanmack (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

how to build love

help please 197.156.103.166 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

how can we build love 197.156.103.166 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)