Talk:Jack Van Impe

Van Impe and Obama

Recently JVI has been comparing Obama to the antichrist. I added a line about this to the article with a specific reference to today's show.

Van Impe's Theology

I have a lot more information that could be added to this article, particularly in regard to Van Impe's peculiar version of apocalyptic theology. Unfortunately, my time will be limited for the next couple months. I would recommend someone add information about his theology, as that is truly the most interesting thing about Van Impe. If no one does, I will at a later date. - Jersyko talk 17:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe I just wasted a half hour of my life writing about this man. Anyway, a lot of the information for this section came from a book review (see the link) from a fundamentalist church that is highly critical of JVI, so there could be some neutrality issues... Also, you may want to change the end of the paragraph, I think I got a little carried away. I don't think JVI thinks all fundamentalists are heretics.- Pbasu 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up just slightly, but thanks for what you added.

Can anyone add something about his apocalyptic views? Those make him truly unique, and even more kooky. - Jersyko talk 21:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well guys, all of this is would probably have to go unsourced, but here's basically what he believes from watching his show over the years...

• Van Impe interprets the Bible very literally. He believes that pretty much all Biblical prophecy is unfulfilled and that all the prophecy will be fulfilled soon.
• He believes adamantly that the antichrist will arise out of the European Union and that he will form a 7-year peace treaty with Israel which he will break 3 1/2 years into the treaty (he derives this opinion from Daniel 7-9). He also believes (from Ezekiel 38-39) that Russia will form an alliance with Arab states for a massive invasion of Israel sometime in the near future. It's safe to say that these aren't exactly "mainstream" Christian views.
• His predictions have changed over time. I remember before 2000 he believed that the Y2K situation would cause Armageddon. He even made a video called "2000: Time Bomb."

Clinevol98 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not a HUGE fan of JVI, but this article is totally biased against him. I didn't read one thing in it that gave any credit for anything, Not saying he needed any, but The article should be written by someone with no opinion of the Minister, instead this sounds like someone who "wanted" to write unbiased but still wrote it for the majority in a negative fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Van Impe's Personal Views

rgowran 10:28p.m. EST 08/22/2009

• I am trying to add recent information coming directly from a Jack Van Impe program. I am being tagged as being at edit war because my information continues to get deleted. The information may not look positive to Van Impe's case, but it is what he is actually saying now. The link to the video validates what is being submitted by me. I feel the information is pertinent to those wishing to find information on this subject. This is my submission:

On the August 5, 2009 program, Van Impe claimed that "they" are now building robots as army men to fight in wars. Van Impe continued by stating that they may turn on their creators, so they are deciding whether to put on/off switches on them. Van Impe also said that men will have sex with these robots. Van Impe claims some will be vegetarians and will eat grass as they travel down the road. Van Impe continues by claiming these robots will also eat your furniture and wood. The entire August 5, 2009 episode is available for viewing on Van Impe's website: http://www.thegospel.com/pages/jvim.asp

Since President Obama has taken office, Van Impe constantly berates the president. Van Impe has taken several of Obama's quotes and interviews, and by piecemeal he puts them together to make his own case. Van Impe has taken a January 2009 quote by Henry Kissinger to portray President Obama as being primed to become leader of the New World Order. Henry Kissinger's actual quote makes no such claim. Dr. Kissinger's actual quote states: "The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously," Kissinger responded. "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis." --Rgowran (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:Undue weight. -- œ^™ 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But it specifically says the guideline does not apply when the article is about the tiny minority or fringe theory.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Van Impe's views are just that, his views, and represent mostly hyperbolic notions that inflame and trample reality. Only the extremely gullible would accept his nonsense as believable; I for one think it is mostly "shock-garbage" to sell his videos and books! (Concerned American, 2009)

I added a new section entitled 'Other beliefs', and did so for two distinct reasons. Firstly, somebody added a line about his views on Islam which cannot honestly be considered Biblical prophecy views. Secondly, no article on him could be complete without pointing to his belief in the Prophecy of Saint-Malachy, to which he has been referring almost continuously for months now. I am by no means a regular editor on WP, and may have done this in an incorrect way, so feel free to edit and add links or quotes. I do however strongly believe that both the distinction between Bible-based and other views and the information regarding the Prophecy of the Popes should be maintained, because they are non-biased and critically important in understanding his world view.

Audio

Do we want any audio of this quack? I have a 1970s era album of him preaching about the evils of rock and roll.  ALKIVAR™ 10:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. - Jersyko talk 13:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you noticed the added audio... hope you enjoy it :)  ALKIVAR™ 03:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe you could have found a worse audio clip to play (insert sarcasm here). I think you should get a clip that reflects his true feelings on salvation or church unity, something besides him railing against rock and roll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaguarjlr (talk • contribs) .

He is talkin' like Hitler; but I am really enjoying his speach. Thank u for the audio! - Tothaa 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

History

A specific section on the history of the show itself would be helpful to readers. Any show thats been on as long as this must have some sort of story behind it beyond the basic facts of his life. How has it been funded all these years? Who is that wacky announcer guy? How has their message evolved over time? What are some examples of how the current week's news headlines have been "proof" that the world's end is imminent? Why does his 70 year old wife look like she is in her 40s? Is this asking too much? :)

• Good suggestions. There is, as far as i can tell, a dearth of good information on Van Impe on the internet. I contacted his organization a few months ago requesting information for this article, but I didn't receive a response. I would be ecstatic, for reasons I truly don't understand, if Wikipedia becomes the world's best source of information for all things Van Impe. - Jersyko talk 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Van Impe has snubbed me as well. I sent him an e-mail slamming his idea of a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel that occurs sometime around a pre-tribulation rapture. All I used were a handful of Wikipedia articles showing him how Gog, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Rosh do not signify modern-day nations. If he really believed in his theories, he would have responded. I even went through their stupid e-mail spam filter due to the "large amount of spam JVIM receives." I am a Christian, but I think this guy is gravely mistaken in his end times theology. Clinevol98 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous quote

I hope that this could be added somewhere to this Wikipedia article:

• Nineteen-hundred seventy-four is the year that they are planning for sex on the streets in every major city from coast to coast. And get ready for a shock! The music that they are planning to use to crumble the morals of America is this rotten, filthy, dirty, lewd, lascivious junk called rock'n'roll.

I don't know if this is already included in the sound sample. I think the words are from a 70's radio program, and at least one artist has made a song out of them. See: Pizzaman - Sex on the streets

Its in the sound sample :)  ALKIVAR™ 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctorate

I just saw the beginning of his show, and the intro calls him 'Dr. Jack Van Impe' - the wiki entry and anything I could find in a quint Internet search just mentions him 'graduating from bible college'. Anyone know where exactly he earned this supposed Doctorate degree???

• I believe he has several honorary doctorates; but not an earned one. - Jersyko talk 06:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The doctorate degrees Jack Van Impe and his wife have received are from an unaccredited and correspondence only Pacific International University. http://www.jvim.org/pt/2004/2004SeptOct.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_International_University. Note that Rexella is also referred to as "Dr.". LCGillies 5 January 2006

It really is amazing that you people don't see what he is trying to tell everyone. Satan has you strung like puppets and you don't even know it. Everything he has talked about is true, your minds are clouded with the culture that is around us today. So keep thinking the way you are now and I bet you will have a change of heart when the Good Lord comes. JSparks 2 March 2006

• Perhaps you should reexamine who is a "puppet" in this case. - Jersyko·talk 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need to take a look at Prophecy as a whole and think as well? This article as I stated earlier is totally biased. I admit JVI may be a little kooky and eccentric at times, and I do not agree with date-setting and such, but the majority of his prophecy "sermons" are not that far off, if any, from what is biblically prophecied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's easy to cite vague prophecies and dates (like tonight with December 21, 2012, real original Jack) to scare people into converting/buying your videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.16.91 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the specific information about the University where he received his doctorate. Those who want info can use the link. The edit info said 'to prove he's a charlatan' - it doesn't prove that, and it's clear evidence of bias. We provide information, not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.88.232 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

What precisely is meant by "his acceptance of Roman Catholicism and especially Pope John Paul II"? Has he converted to Roman Catholicism? Or does it just mean that he accepts Roman Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity, without being the one he himself adheres to? Angr/talk 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Angr, the latter is correct. He is not a Catholic. He's a Protestant minister.Politician818 00:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw his show once where he mentioned Catholicism. He seemed to indicate that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification means the RCC is now in line with Protestantism or is at least moving in that direction. I should mention that was not precisely how he said it. To people of his ilk "Protestantism" is simply "Christianity" or "Biblical Christianity" so he likely just said Catholicism is becoming more "Biblical." I don't think it's quite accurate to say he accepts Catholicism as Catholicism, he accepts it as a denomination that is evolving toward what he sees as acceptable for Christianity. I've seen other Fundamentalist or Evangelicals take this position, that Catholicism deserves sympathy as it's "on the road" to "becoming truly Christian", and although they mean well in saying it I personally find it highly offensive.--T. Anthony 07:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I imagine you're probably right. The problem with all things Van Impe, of course, is that his show is probably the best source of information on him, but I pity the person who would want to sit through it enough to find it. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right I have no source. Oh well.--T. Anthony 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that he is a Protestant preacher because I just watched a show where he blasts all Protestant denominations saying that they are all teaching that the world will end and be destroyed. He also gives the Catholics praise for teaching everything right concerning the end times with the world not being destroyed but being recreated. I have never heard any Protestant preacher teach that the world will be destroyed but Revelation does say there will be a new heaven and new earth which is as he stated that it will be re-created. Van Impe may have started out as a Protestant preacher but I believe he has a Catholic leaning to his beliefs now. I have not found anything yet stating his actual affiliation with any denomination. It would be intersting to find out what denomination he is a member of if any at all. -David Paul 4-20-2010

Second Coming of Jesus

Dr. Van Impe has never given a specific date for Jesus' return. He has always stated that only the Father knows the specific time of Jesus' return. Dr. Van Impe has theorized that Jesus will return no later than 2018, but he has never given a specific date. Please cite a source saying that he has. Hunter, how are your personal feelings on Van Impe relevant to this discussion? His show is an infomercial, and stations that air him usually state beforehand that his views don't necessarily represent their views.Politician818 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On this morning's show, Van Impe gave a specific date of December 21st 2012. This date is also mentioned on the homepage of his website, and is the title of a video that can be purchased. To be fair, the title of the video includes a question mark ("December 21st 2012: History's Final Day?"), but it's still a specific date, even if he's hedging his bets with the question mark. 75.219.153.143 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the local broadcaster of Dr. Van Impe's show in Indianapolis, WHMB-TV, they do not carry it as paid-programming. It is worth noting this channel is mostly Christian programming. Regardless, it appears that his show is not always broadcasted as an infomercial, but also as regular programming.--Patrick80639 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a Fundamentalist?

Can someone please give documentation showing that Dr. Van Impe is not a fundamentalist anymore? He certainly respects the Roman Catholic Church, but he unquestionably holds a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whoever wrote that he is no longer a fundamentalist doesn't really grasp what a fundamentalist is.Politician818 00:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate?

On the broadcast from tonight, Feb. 10, 2008, Rexella Van Impe announced that Jack Van Impe's birthday is in February, contradicting the date currently listed in the entry. What documentation is for the June 15, 1930 date? Mr. Van Impe announced on the broadcast that today is his birthday, though I do not know if this refers to today, Feb. 10, or whichever early February day the program was originally filmed or first scheduled to be broadcast. Also I have no proof of the correct year as neither stated his age during the program. 71.255.33.43 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) He's was ten in peral harbor but now he's is dead from smoking and drinking so it ain't got to matter anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.48.54 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No Weasel Words

I've read Jack Van Impe article two times over. There isn't one single weasel word in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicLevelHandbook (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs Needed

I have tagged the article as needing refs...there are claims in the BLP that need to be verified, especially the statement about Obama. Willking1979 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has a reference to the article of him saying everything regarding Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.206.238 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Informercial

How is this not an infomercial? He buys a block of 30 minutes during off-peak hours to peddle his "products" to the weak-minded. That's the definition of an infomercial. All of the "content" is simply them trying to convince you the world is ending so that you should buy their book about the world ending. They even use televangelists as an example of infomercials in the informercial article! Iulus Ascanius (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya but c'mon you can't tell me that's coming from a neutral point of view there.. I'm wondering if it wasn't a Christian evangelical show would you still be so adamant about it being an infomercial? OK so it's not stretching the definition all that much, I would even call it 'borderline' infomercial, but still there are so many obvious differences between this show and a 'genuine' infomercial. So what if he wants to promote his books on his show? The majority of the "content" is just evangelical preaching, even if it does serve a purpose it could still stand on its own even without the book offer. With infomercials it's ALL about the product, with a disclaimer before and after, and numerous "call now!" pitches in between. This program isn't 'officially' an infomercial by their own definition as well. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the most encyclopedic way to respond is this: do any reliable sources call the show an infomercial? If yes, then we can include it. If no, then we can't. (No matter our personal opinions on the matter!) -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, but unfortunately as someone noted earlier, the guy is so far out there that no sources really exist except the show itself. Maybe we should say what was also discussed - that some stations program him without pay (I assume ex-PAX christian stations), while for others it is paid programming.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

content removed

This articles needs a lot more reliable sources, I removed the worse content which lacked reliable sources. Remember it's verification not truth we are interested in, if you can't provide verification it's not going in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Surgeon was a muslim

Will whoever keeps adding this please note that a) we can't add things like that without a reference to back it up b) The word 'incidentally' isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Obama comments through Youtube

An IP keeps readding comments made about Obama to the article, and using a Youtube video as a reference. While using a Youtube video might serve as proof that it happened, it doesn't establish the notability of the event. Unless it's reference in reliable secondary sources, the controversy is all original research. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Y2K and other predictions

Jack Van Impe made a number of predictions regarding the end times; specifically, I know that I saw him claim nearly every week during 1998-99 that Y2K would trigger mass chaos and that the return of Christ would happen shortly thereafter. I added a section about this to the article and cited websites that highlight this. Why were my edits removed? They are relevant and cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomistGuy (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the sources you use are not considered suitable according to our policies on reliable sources and articles on living people. Please read WP:RS before you edit further. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There are almost no citations in the article at all. I stated a plain fact entirely from memory and found a website that verified what I had said. Short of going to find the archives of his TV shows from the 90s (which may or may not be accessible) there is no way to cite this information. But it IS pertinent. ThomistGuy (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can't cite it to reliable sources, we can't include it - wikipedia is about verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, most of the article should be deleted. ThomistGuy (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Get to it then. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The predictions content you added is undue weight, and not notable, Van Impe made a lot of dumb predictions, It does not have any business being in the article. The other content you removed is totally relevant, uncontroversial (and therefor not "likely to be challenged" as per WP:V) biographical material and was only removed to prove a WP:POINT, so I've restored it. It's obvious neither of you care about improving this article. What's wrong with you guys? We're here to build an encyclopedia remember?! Not squabble with each other because you just have to win, all the while the article suffers for it! -- œ^™ 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Van Impe getting crazier?

I realize that this would likely run afoul of the prohibitions regarding "original research", but I can't help but feel that Mr. Van Impe seems to have gotten progressively crazier the past few years, what with the "socialist America" stuff and casting President Obama as both a Muslim and, possibly, the anti-Christ. I say this because there was a time not too long ago where Jack actually seemed to be one of the more reasonable (to use the term very loosely) televangelists on my television, or at least a less incendiary individual than the Hagees, Robertsons, Parsleys, and Falwells of the world. If true, is there a way, providing someone has the right combination of free time and intellectual masochism, to somehow incorporate the evolution of Jack's unique world view into Wikipedia? Incidentally, Rexella is kind of cute.172.190.61.39 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Van Impe looks at what's in the news or popular among conservative Christians and builds his "analyses" around said news or views. I reckon he is more theologically inclusive than most, but like most preachers he still has to remain "topical" and up to the minute, as it were. --Mrdie (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) That dude dead. He dies from alcohol and smoking abuse in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.48.54 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Failed prophecy

He seems to skip around a lot in revelations and he has claimed numerous events that didn't happen. When events happen, he narrowly interprets the Bible and previous comments he's made ad hoc to fit the event. Why is this not a section? Where is the criticism section? Here's at least one failed prophecy concerning 2001 http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl11.htm Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Chrislam

his use of chrislam (a modern one-world religion clinton-blair-imams islam-christianity blend conspiracy) is different from the current wikipedia chrislam article (a decades-old african islam-christianity blend), so i'm de-wikilinking it. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Doctorates

I figured it was best to start a new thread, but this is partially raised above. In checking the source for Van Impe's doctorate, [1], it states that the Pacific International University one was his 15th PhD, and his wife had recieved her third. It seems pretty odd to get multiple PhDs - you only need one, and extra won't count for much at all. :) But my concern is with highlighting the Pacific International University one, as I have no idea if any other others would have better standing. The PIU doctorate is probably meaningless (although PIU were accredited for a time, and could award postgraduate degrees), but perhaps one or more of the others does have value. Similarly, I don't know the status of the two other PhDs his wife was awarded. By mentioning only one PhD, and presenting it as meaningless, (even though it probably is), but not covering the other 14, we create a problem with NPOV. - Bilby (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I hadn't read the entire page in the pdf, I just found the section with the heading "Now it's Dr. and Dr. Van Impe" (which really implies it was his first degree, it's a very odd choice of words seeing as how he supposedly has 15 doctorates.) The previous conversation on this talk page about his education didn't find any evidence of his other supposed qualifications. I'm certainly getting the impression that if he does have 15 doctorates (am I the only one who thinks that might not be true, considering the amount of time it takes to earn a real doctorate is that even possible in one lifetime?), Pacific International may be the one he considers most impressive, which speaks volumes in itself. Anyway here's my issue: the info box currently refers to his title as "Dr." If this is to remain in the article the reader deserves some information as to why he holds/uses this title. How about we use the reference to state something along the lines of: 'Van Impe reportedly has 15 doctorates, the most recent of which was obtained in 2004 from Pacific International University, a non-accredited conservative Christian university.' Even if he does actually have 15 doctorates I don't necessarily think pointing out that PIU is unaccredited is necessarily POV due to the fact it is (as far as I can tell) his most recent qualification and it is the only one we have information on. If only his, say, 8th doctorate out of 15 was from an unaccredited college, and we had references that he had accredited qualifications, i think going out of our way to mention the unaccredited one that would be POV. But considering this is what we have information on and it is his most recent qualification I think this is fair to mention. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

...So if there are no objections I will make my proposed change tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm reasonably comfortable with your proposal. My problem is still our ignorance about his other Doctorates. The insinuation is that because one Doctorate is questionable, the reader is left to infer that all of the Doctorates are questionable, when we know nothing about the others. But I also agree that 15 Doctorates is questionable in the first place - we expect students to take three years to do one. :) And after the first, there is no value at all in a second - multiple honourary Doctrates mean something, but multiple non-honourary ones would be very strange, unless you really wanted to get one in a second, unrelated, field to your first.

In regard to PI's accreditation, they were for a period accredited to hand out Doctorates and Masters, but I think that was prior to when this one was given. I'll check that again - I think that was in '94 when they were still based in Australia. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Checking, tat was back in '93, so the 2004 Doctorate was well past that date. Presumably they were unaccredited in 2004. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jack Van Impe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In terms of article quality, I think B-Class is reasonable, since the following definition of the B-class pretty much describes this article: A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. In terms of importance, it was a little trickier -- it all depends on what Impe's field is. Christian leaders? In that case, very low. Late 20th century American televangelists? Perhaps "Mid". Anyway, that's how he's tagged. Comments welcome. --Zantastik talk 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo

I thought we could use a photo of Jack, so I got a screenshot from a CC 3.0 licensed Youtube video here: [2]. But WM Commons wouldn't let me upload it. It said "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added the photo but it's being discussed for deletion, at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_September_17#File:Jack_Van_Impe.jpg. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included since he wrote over fifty books 70.26.26.119 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)