Talk:Lee Strobel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

expansion[edit]

I personally feel that this article could be expanded on his bio. I don't have the time right now or else I would.Falphin 01:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)




How is this article at all in conformance with Wikipedia?[edit]

This is like what leestrobel.com would contain. Instead of having whole sections, each of which contains a full synpopsis for each book:

   2.1 The Case for a Creator
   2.2 The Case for Christ
   2.3 The Case for the Real Jesus
   2.4 The Case for Faith

there should be, at most, his bibliography. How is this appropriate?--Petzl (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. The article needs a fundamental re-write. And given the relative "notability" of the author, it should be drastically shrunk. It has the feel of someone trying to puff up a small subject to meet the required minimal page length of an assignment. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rife with unreliable and fake sources; bizarre as an article[edit]

If you look at each of referenced sources you will find that they are all form non-neutral, evangelical, apologetic sources. The articles themselves are all fluff pieces for an evangelist who they support in their apologetic mission. There is no indication that any of these sources have any degree of reliability. The first source cited, The Gospel Herald, is cited for the proposition that Strobel was an "award winning journalist.' While the article certainly says that, it does not mention a single award. Nor do any of the other sources. What is the red flag about this article, however, is that it claims that Strobel studied law at Harvard. Yet we read in the article that he studied law at Yale. And what is the source for this information? A link to the ad for the book by the publisher Zondervan (an evaangelic publishing house). Evidently it's now enough at Wikipedia to quote the publishers precis! Is that a subtle acknowledgement that the book itself is not worth reading?

The brief contradictory (and frankly factually empty) biography is followed by a bizarre summary or table of contents for three books. There is no authority for any of it, I guess because whoever put it there didn't think it needed citation, because it's just an advertisement.

This whole article is more like an Amazon description of his works would be if Amazon catered only to fundamentalist, evangelical Protestants.

It is, frankly, an embarrassment to Wikipedia. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem confused. For instance it states he was a teaching pastor in 1987 which was before his conversion, according to the article, in 1991. One what seems to be fairly reliable source states the conversion was in 1980 (so perhaps 1991 is a typo)[fixup 1] I would also like more info on what awards he won as an investigative journalist. --Erp (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One award was in 1980 from the UPI Editors Association newspaper award program, a first place for public service for his coverage of the Pinto crash trial of Ford Motor in Winamac, Indiana.[fixup 2]
  1. ^ Bennoit, Mary Alice (15 October 1999). "Willow Creek Pastor Following His Calling To California Congregation". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 8 April 2017.
  2. ^ "Tribune wins 21 awards in UPI contest". Chicago Tribune. 16 May 1980. p. 5.
These problems do not appear to be as prominent currently...? I wonder whether the tag at the top is still warranted, given that it's 3.5 years old, and the article is about 50/50 in terms of third party vs non-independent sources. Thoughts? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Strobel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]