Talk:Neil Clark Warren

Posts Should Be Removed

Valid and reasoned criticism is fine (as pertains to article editing) but this stuff is neither and should be removed.

Sean7phil (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should anybody say that Neil Clark Warren is a con artist since me and some other fans think it is immoral to charge money for a dating service? (unsigned comment from anon)

Wouldn't that depend on whether he provides a service and whether the people paying are forced or compelled for nefarious purposes? I mean, if the guy actually helps people find people they want to date and they are willing to pay the money voluntarily it doesn't sound like a con. His religious background and biases annoy me and I wouldn't use his service even if I were looking, but others might find it something they might get value out of. Deathbunny 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, charging an interest rate over 5% for loans is criminal. Shall I add what I "think" to wikipedia's interest article?Drouillm 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's a great Interview from NPR linked. But it's not transcribed. Can we do anything about that? Downchuck 03:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As a 50+ male seeking the love of my life I completed the eHarmony self-quiz thingy and it found me one supposedly suitable match: it was Neil Clark Warren. I feel so dirty. 68.13.60.210 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

eHarmony is an excuse to discriminate on religious basis. He should be sued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.240.11 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is nothing but PR fluff Proxy User (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

" ... offered seminars and teaching tools based on the wisdom from Warren’s books ... the first and only compatibility matching service ..."

This is unadulterated marketing hype! A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I just made some edits to try and clean the article up a bit. There was too much repetition, unnecessary quotes, and flowery language. It still needs a lot of work, but I think this improves it somewhat. - 68.51.33.90 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs, but Wikipedia -- while I believe it is a great idea -- has its own credibility problems. Among other things, it certainly shouldn't allow itself to be used as a billboard for a bigoted matchmaker who looks like a cross between Orville Reddenbacher and Grant Wood's farmer with the pitchfork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.177.218 (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seven THOUSAND interviews?

I think we should find another source to justify the seven thousand interview bit, else it sounds like marketing fluff. Doing 7,000 interviews in one's life would be a damn challenge. If you could somehow maintain doing an interview a day, you'd have do do one, every day, for 19 years and 65 days? Sound legit? Not so sure.... Needs more rigorous citation so it doesn't sound like bs fluffery.....

207.216.83.226 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plus, doesn't it sound like he's totally unqualifed to make comments on compatibility, if he's criticizing a couple that was together for over fifty years for being different in intelligence? That truly makes him sound like he has no f'ing clue in relation to objective compatibility, and is more concerned with his own subjective preconceptions about compatibility than any real standard. Doesn't sound very legit to me, when he's being a "compatibility expert" and is basing his whole expertise on criticizing a couple that stayed together for their whole life. Sounds like genuine internet quackery to me.... but I'm just an armchair expert.....

207.216.83.226 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The claim does not appear to be in the Dan Slater book so I have removed it. The "ten books" assertion is genuine but, even for someone in his 80s, may have changed since the book was published in 2013. It is not notable enough for the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Clark Warren. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040225142236/http://www.family.org/married/youngcouples/a0021741.cfm to http://www.family.org/married/youngcouples/a0021741.cfm

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) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)