Talk:Matt Slick

Untitled

• Talk:Matt Slick/archive1

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy tag

Okay. Can we get a two listings, Diane, of what in that section you consider non-neutral, and what in that section you consider factually inaccurate? That tag isn't supposed to be a permanent feature of a page, but rather a notice that editors are working toward fixing the section. And we can't work toward fixing the section if it isn't clear what the problems are. --Hyperbole 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the tag should be removed if no one is willing to list the alleged inaccuracies and non-neutral items. Urbie 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Urbie

I think we should get into the problem teachings of Matt Slick specifically and directly, honestly and forthright instead of allowing further skirting around the issue.

The problem Christians find with Matt's teachings is that he believes in calvinism, which is the pride of one believing in being premade for salvation, that is, regenerated or saved or given faith first before they can believe, while others not. Would God do that? Would God premake people for hell and not give them the choice? Why would God ask us to receive the cross if He saves us first? Obviously, this puffs up self to consider oneself premade for salvation and creates passivity to lower one's conscience as a robot premade for salvation.

There is also the false teaching of thinking that tongues means gibberish babble. But where in the Bible do we find this? Thus, it is man made. The gift of tongues are languages and spoken to show others can believe as well, even as a sign to Israel. Pentecostals' tongues that is so popular today again lowers the conscience and induces passivity for control. This is the common theme of a man who seeks to control men.

And there is the problem of amillenialism, claiming the time we are in now is the 1000 year millennial peace. But if this is so why does Rev. 20.3 say in the 1000 years the nations will no longer decieved, thus no longer war? Again, this deadens the spirit. And where has an army of 200 million amassed in the middle east (Rev. 9.16) and 1/3 of the people of the earth died in so great a Tribulation (Rev. 9.18)?

Well firstly, I don't think anyone even cared on the talk page yet about calvanism or predestination at all, and secondly, i'm reasonably certain predestination doesn't work that way. You'd think if it was the way you put it, then Calvinists never would of thought up something so wrong in the first place. Also, you haven't cited any statements of Matt, so as far as I know, you might be talking about the beliefs of somebody compleatly different. Homestarmy 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The evangelicals (citation?)

Since February, or maybe earlier, there has been a tag for a citation needed right after the statement which says that critics also include other evangelical Christians disagreeing with his methods or approach. If there is no citation in a certain amount of time, shouldn't the statement be removed? OneGyT/T|C 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't participate in this page much, but since I saw it, i've wondered about that too, who disagrees with this guy's website? I use it all the time and i've never seen much of a problem Biblically speaking. Homestarmy 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether Evangelicals disagree with Slick's theology; it's a question of whether they are critical of his methods and approach. Such criticism of Slick by Evangelicals is plentiful on several discussion boards, and thus the statement is true; it's finding a source that's tricky, since there is an ongoing debate over whether using a discussion board in such a way would qualify it as a primary or a secondary source (verifying the existence of criticism versus risking elevating the criticism to the appearance of endorsement by Wikipedia) --Hyperbole 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that would pose a bit of a problem :/. Technically, I can understand some people thinking this guy's evangelistic method isn't quite correct, (I've read some of his witnessing situations myself, and there's certainly a difference in evangelistic technique than what im familiar with) but I don't know how it's necessarily deserving of critics blasting him or something. Homestarmy 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Slick has faced criticism from members of every non-Evangelical group under the sun is apparently considered acceptable by everyone without a citation to such criticism (since, again, such criticism is rarely formal). The fact that Slick's methods and general conduct has led to criticism by select Evangelicals should be equally obvious, and, in my opinion, should stand without citation. It would stretch credulity to suggest that, among the thousands of Evangelicals Slick interacts with, there aren't Evangelicals who think Slick's methods drive more people from Christianity than attract them to it; I've met more than a few, myself. Removing that sentence would lead to the POV appearance that the only people who disagree with Slick's methods and approach are cultists; that's untrue and non-neutral. --Hyperbole 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Slick himself has asked in his critique of this article, "who are these evangelical Christians?" or something to that effect, which is probably the reason the notice was added. That is also why I asked. OneGyT/T|C 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a citation was needed for the entire paragraph about Slick's critics, not just the statement about evangelical critics. Urbie

I suppose that might be. OneGyT/T|C 00:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let there be open disclosure. What does Matt Slick teach? Calvinism-pride of believing in being premade for salvation, while others premade for hell; Amillennialism-claiming the millennial peace is now with 6 million Jews killed in WWII, even though Rev. 20.3 says the nations will no longer be deceived in the millennium and in the Great Tribulation, there will be a machine army of 200 million in the middle east (9.16) and 1/3 of the people of earth will die (v.18); Pentecostalism gibberish babble-yet we must ask where is this psychic gibberish (revived heresy of montanism) & babble mediums found in the Scriptures?

Deletion of unsourced negative material

I had never heard of Mr. Slick before reading this article, but I have twice deleted poorly sourced negative material about Slick's moderation of his organization's discussion forums in accord with the strict policy laid out in WP:BLP. It seems to me that there are some people who feel slighted in some past encounters and are taking their grievances to the Wikipedia. In addition, this is not encyclopedic material. The published criticism of Slick by Cowan is fine (and could even be expanded on -- what does Cowan say about CARM in that article?), but personal squabbles have no place here. Slick can run his own discussion forums however he wants. --Flex 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Slick in connection with his forums is well-documented all over the Internet; the difficulty lies in convincing Slick's supporters of the reliability of the criticism, since none of it is published in scholarly journals. It has long been my position that criticism is always a reliable source for claims of the existence of itself (not, of course, for the claims made in that criticism), but Slick advocates continue to remove references to that criticism. Nonetheless, the criticism is constant, verifiable, and notable; it is acknowledged at CARM (Slick has articles on the Universalist conflict and the AARM exodus, and even keeps a "hate mail" section running in his newsletters); and removing it creates a hopelessly POV article that reads like an endorsement of Matt Slick. --Hyperbole 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is with WP:BLP, these controversies must be very well documented inside the article, as opposed to the marginal documentation of some of it there is now. Homestarmy 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP forbids speculative negative rumors about living people. The existence of criticism of Slick's conduct is easily verified and acknowledged by Slick himself. There's nothing speculative about it; we're not running afoul of the policy. --Hyperbole 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, while we as editors know that it's verified somewhere, readers won't know that, they'll just see two paragraphs, one with no reference, and one with a reference only from Slick which doesn't present the other sides supposed perspective very well. Homestarmy 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've historically put about eight citations to criticism of Slick (check back through the history) in that paragraph, and Slick supporters have insisted that, since none of them come from scholarly journals or mainstream news, they are unacceptable sources, and have removed them. It's a cheap tactic to try to create an article that seems like criticism of Slick, a public figure, does not exist, when in fact it is widespread. Similarly, Slick supporters have determined that Slick's depiction of the Universalist conflict is a viable source, but the various descriptions by Universalists are not. I agree that the controversy section needs significant work, but whitewashing it is not the answer. --Hyperbole 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

...To all concerned: Hyperbole and friends, are in violation of wikipedia guidelines, rules and have been for over a year on this article, as members of an "atheist website" with very few members, they are seeking to promote their forums by using this article for the "propaganda and advertisment" of discussion forums including various anonymous users of about 300 people that have libeled the members of the CARM ministry. Should we link all "atheist" websites that have difficulties with Christians, to this article as well? It is obvious, as supported by documentation and pasted here in the past, to the "libelous" atheist website that even admins of wikipedia have been ignored or reverted when removing the advertisments from this article. It will be addressed through the foundation as instructed to the complete disregard of wikipedia rules. The numerous attempts to work within the wikipedia guidelines has been ignored, time and time again by this group with their agenda to promote their propaganda and advertisments. When the rules are posted here by editors in the past, they are ignored by the "atheist" members seeking to control the content of the article. Enough is enough. We will appeal this to Jim Wales himself, as he has instructed should there be any more use of this article and biography to libel a living person with unsourced material is to be removed immediately. The use of the CARM article for the purpose of advertisment of "propaganda" unreliable sourced material will also be addressed.Diane S 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, "Slick supporters" will just have to deal with WP:BLP, because neither scholarly journals nor mainstream news probably care at all about CARM, but these paragraphs must be referenced somehow. What sources exactly are you trying to use, we can go over them and figure out which ones actually fit WP:V, because limiting things to just "scholarly journals" and "mainstream news" isn't in policy at all. Homestarmy 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My broader point here is this: does this criticism even belong in the Wikipedia (again, see WP:NOT)? I have yet to see any evidence that would make this more than a bone a few people have to pick with Slick. That Slick doesn't allow total freedom of speech on his own discussion forums is not notable. Most website/blog owners don't allow it either, but that point does not seem particularly relevant on their pages any more than it does here. (It might be with regard to someone primarily known for advocacy of freedom of speech, but I don't think that characterizes Slick.) Only after the question of the suitability is answered should we address the quality of sources. --Flex 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

....You are correct Flex, this article has been used by a group of members to an "atheist" propaganda website....We are taking the necessary steps to correct this situation. But since the group have outnumbered the other editors here, they have continued to insert their propaganda and advertisement into this article. I can provide all the documentation necessary.Diane S 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It would belong if it's notable, and considering CARM itself mentions the critcism quite a good bit in many of its articles, I would say that yes, the criticism does belong in this article, as long as it is well-verified. I wasn't actually here for whatever fight people had over this article, (I found it after reading the article Matt put on his site concerning his wiki bio, and by then, the discussion had died down) but it sounded to me like alot of people wanted to use references which fell well below WP:V like blogs and stuff, but that there were some references somewhere. Homestarmy 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Why does such a squabble merit inclusion in the Wikipedia? Why is it important or notable to the world at large? Again, Slick can run his forums however he pleases, and even if he and his opponents have addressed the issue in an online article or three and have strong feelings about the matter, I fail to see any objective basis for the importance of this matter and thus for its inclusion. --Flex 18:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) "

On it's own, the controversy isn't notable, for instance, if one started a Controversies of CARM article, there probably wouldn't be enough importance there for it to be an article. But since the subject of the article is notable, and the controversy concerns the subject, and is verifiable, (though I assume the quality of the verification is in dispute) then it is notable enough to be inside the Matt Slick article. Matt seemed to think it was notable anyway, since he wrote some articles concerning the controversy, and he does seem to be willing to respond to his critics. Homestarmy 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see this small-scale quibbling on a topic that doesn't concern Slick's or CARM's main interests as being worth mention here. If the criticism were about his thought and works, that would be different. This is about how he runs his own discussion boards. That is simply not notable in an encyclopedia article. Nothing criminal or newsworthy occurred. Slick's character is not called into question just because he censored his own discussion boards. Find me just one published mention of it anywhere. (I'll wager doughnuts to dollars that there isn't a single mention of it in the mainstream media, Skeptical Inquirerer, Reason magazine, Atheism Today [ok, I made that one up], etc.) Again, just because Slick has written online about it (along with a few others), that doesn't mean it belongs in the Wikipedia article about him. I await your evidence. --Flex 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me, Hyperbole is the one who says he has the references :/. Homestarmy 00:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at a compromise. The current version mentions the incident but does not violate WP:BLP in my opinion. --Flex 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There are actually two discrete incidents; the 2001 mass censorship of Universalism and the 2004 purge of most atheists on the site. I think its important to note that Slick is notable only because he has a large religion website; his obscure book and limited-audience radio show would probably not confer notability on him by themselves. Thus, this article really exists only because of Slick's website, and the vast majority of readers of the article will be coming from that website: that makes the history of controversy on the website particularly notable. --Hyperbole 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was in fact making some changes to account for the two different incidents (which I just read about in other WP articles) when you made your edit. The new version seems better to me (and hopefully more accurate), though we need a citation for that AARM sentence. --Flex 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have studied the newest and latest rules and it is time this be addressed and dealt with to the proper authorities, we also will be in touch with administration concerning this article that is in violation of all the rules to living person Biography, including the links, unreliable sources given, discussion boards linked of anonymous individuals attacking the person by name as noted "propaganda websites." The critics violate the "source" rules, and the biography itself is completely in violation to the contraversial sections of this and the CARM articles. I will attempt to get administration of wikipedia here to enforce the rules, according to Jim Wales, he is to be contacted directly, but in the mean time, any editor is directed to "remove" immediately such content.

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial" material

"Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details).

'Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP

......I suggest that any, all editors to this article pa;y strict attention to the "libelous" warnings, the article is in violation, as noted in the link pasted, we will email directly the foundation as instructed, should the links and propaganda websites be put back into this article....Diane S 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're arriving a month after we've had the discussion on bringing this article into concert with WP:BLP. Flex deleted all the critical material that was poorly sourced, and what remains is fully sourced. Do not misread WP:BLP as some kind of policy that criticism of a public figure must be excluded from an article if that figure is alive. --Hyperbole 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please list here the "verifiable" links and sources. You must show the persons actually exist, have been published, and are not libeling the person of the biography. Again, per Jim, and the foundation, there is no 3 revert rule for libel or personal attacks on a living person. You must show, a verifiable source, put it here.

Homestarmy and Flex above have made several points that have been ignored. Show us that a a r m links are verifiable, reliable sources, never to be used to attack a living person in articles.Diane S 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At no point in this article is AARM used as a source; therefore, Wikipedia does not repeat any claims that might be libelous; therefore, the article does not run afoul of WP:BLP. As an external link, however, AARM is invaluable, since it is one of the few places that contain discussion of Slick which are not actively censored by Slick or his agents. --Hyperbole 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole has correctly stated our policy on this matter. -Will Beback 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not, and I am reporting this to the foundation. You may not post libelous, unverifiable sources in links or as sources.Diane S 04:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, are you aware, that hyperbole is linking to a blog/discussion forum where he participates, purposed to slander/libel Matt Slick? I would like you to show us the rule, guideline that permits linking to an editors blog/discussion forum, by the editor, to attack the person in the biography? He is claiming it is a place where Slick cannot control what is stated? Think about that? Is it to a "prominent" group that may be verified?Diane S 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do I see athiest posters from anti-CARM sites editing a biography of a man they openly detest? JBaker45 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it has been going on for over a year, obvious that atheists/liberals are using wikipedia as a "soap box" and advertisement for their POV. It is time this article be properly edited to a NPOV.Diane S 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." AARM posters and members, spamming the CARM and Matt slick articles with their advertisements to atheist website forums.Diane S 07:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been exhaustively covered - there is a community consensus that Wikipedia's mention of AARM does not constitute spam. In fact, the article AARM survived an AfD [1] (although it was later merged into John W. Ratcliff). The Wikipedia community didn't consider AARM spam then, and doesn't now. What it is, is an external link consistent with WP:EL that presents one of multiple POVs on Slick. --Hyperbole 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very easy to answer, because the atheists/liberal editors were not truthful to their agenda and continue, search the history to see what happened. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see the manipulation going on by the atheist/liberal editors here to promote their website. The last admin here, had never looked to the CARM ministry content and was led to believe, by the atheists/liberals here, it was simply a group of discussion boards. The admin here admitted to not even understanding it is a ministry organization completely separate from "discussion boards." He never checked what CARM is about, though another admin did edit and attempt to clean up this mess explaining to him that the aarm links were completely inappropriate.

The former admin that removed christian editors consistently, made comments about CARM and aarm as if they were the same in content, he never checked the libelous content on the aarm forums, never applied the rules that forums should not be linked or sourced. Because he was led to believe that CARM was simply discussion boards, again, he said it several times. If he had been informed to checking the documentation of the content of aarm, it would have been immediately removed, as per the rules that unverifiable, discussion boards are not to be used as links or sources especially if used to libel, attack a "living person." Very plainly written in the rules....Aarm was included because false information was placed here by those pushing their agenda.....and continues. Again, why are you an atheist, that "detests" Matt Slick, a member of antiCARM websites here to constantly insert your links and opinions in this article. Someone here is "obsessed" with their agenda and it is becoming more obvious. Sure, link the garbage to Ratcliff, it is his troll website where he is not libeled, it has no purpose to be here, does not apply at all to CARM ministries and certainly violates all wikipedia rules.Diane S 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Shall we list all the libelous content from the aarm forums? This article is violating the wikipedia rules to including discussion/blogs that are completely about attacking the person with slander/libel.Diane S 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP refers to potentially libelous material within a Wikipedia article. None appears in this article. WP:EL says that links representing each notable POV should be represented; AARM is one such link. If you think AARM contains libel (and, frankly, it doesn't), then take it up with AARM. An administrator has already ruled that I have interpreted these policies correctly; WP:BLP is not a license to censor any sourced information you find unpleasant. --Hyperbole 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to "prominent" sources, and certainly not to discussion/blogs, once again, you are violating the rules. No discussion forums/blogs in links, no libelous material, no links to "Joe blow" anyone that sets up a website. A discussion board of atheists that hate christians, is not a "prominent" website link. Sorry, you are wrong.'Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."Diane S 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane, quoting the same portion of WP:BLP to this Talk page does nothing but clutter it. Trust me, I've read the policy many times. As I said, it's a policy about poorly sourced claims made in Wikipedia articles. It is not a policy that prohibits external links that do not agree with the POV of the subject. An administrator has already made a ruling that I am correctly interpreting the policies. --Hyperbole 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the administrator does not have the authority to permit "libelous" links, if there is even a slight chance of libelous content, or copyrighted material on the link you have posted, it is to be removed immediately, and there is no 3RR for "libelous" websites. If the administrator wants to see the libelous posts on the forum, I can begin to post them here for all to see. You had better do your research once again. You have not given a "reliable" verifiable source for your edits on criticism, and the links you have provided, are not verifiable, but discussion boards that also contain "libelous" materials. The administrator does not know what aarm is, I would bet he has not read they are simply forums libeling the "living person" in this biography, he has not checked the websites linked or would not permit the content, and was not aware of the "libelous" material on the external links posted. Or perhaps, the administrator is also permitting the use of this article for propaganda for other reasons. If so, the administrator will have to provide the documentation here, with his/her full name, giving permission, for propagandist to link to a "libelous" discussion forum, that is strictly forbidden in the rules and we can then send this information to the foundation for their review. Discussion forums, blogs are NOT permitted in links even if they are not libelous, in this case two rules broken, the aarm forums, are a "progaganda" atheist website, not a prominent website of a verifiable source and "libelous" in content. Once again, you are wrong.Diane S 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a "Slight chance" of a copyright violation in any external link in any article on wikipedia, but we aren't responsible for it. (Unless some ridiculous law is passed making us responsible) I have read about libel from this forum however, and I gotta say, forums generally aren't great things to link to in the first place unless their like the main subject of the article or something. AARM is wikilinked, so it should properly go there. The details of the forum itself aren't elaborated on extensively here anyway. However, this notion that blogs and forums are never permitted is really quite wrong, as they are certainly allowed if the article actually discusses them in some detail if I remember the wording correctly. Homestarmy 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article concerns

There appears to have been a great deal of discussion over some issues with the article. We recieved an email to WP:OTRS complaining of violations to our reliable sources and external link policies. I noticed that we have two forums used as references and one references is a geocities page - these would all appear to violate our reliable sources policy. Unless someone has a reason they feel these sources should be considered reliable, I'll remove the statements attributed to them. I'm also concerned that some of the external links are of poor quality and don't seem to qualify under any of our guidelines. The CARM website is linked multiple times for some reason and there are several low quality sites and a forum. Unless some case can be made that these qualify as legitimate external links, these will be removed as well. The above discussions appear to have gotten a bit off topic, so please try to limit yourself to an explanation of why these items do or do not follow Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some personal web pages are used as sources in the article, but not to assert facts about Slick - only to assert their own existence. There has been a general consensus on this article that any source is reliable enough to assert the existence of itself.

This whole argument has been problematic because Slick is so low on the notability scale - he hasn't generated any major press whatsoever - and he really is best known for being a webmaster and an administrator on a forum. Therefore, all the information we have on him is either A) self-reported; or B) comes from opposing webmasters and forums - generally non-notable sources. So there's a difficult issue here; because Slick is unusually controversial for his level of notability, to limit the article to information from category A would create an unacceptably POV article, and to include information from category B requres using sources that would not generally be considered reliable for a more public figure. Were we to leave it all out, we'd have no article (which I'm not sure isn't the best solution). --Hyperbole 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot?

Hyperbole said "Were we to leave it all out, we'd have no article (which I'm not sure isn't the best solution)."

I have to say deleting the article may be the most appropriate response. Matt Slick does not really meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, and if we apply the "10-year test," I'm honestly not sure if anyone in the world is going to know (or be concerned) about the controversy regarding the operation of his webforum. I'm given to understand that he can be a nice guy, and all that, but being a "nice guy" just isn't enough to write an encyclopedia article on.

I don't want to just jump into an AfD without some idea of consensus from the community however. Any opinions from other editors? Justin Eiler 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. Anecdotally, I hadn't heard of him before reading this article, and I haven't heard of him since. Seems like WP:VAIN or inverse-vanity (which here amounts to Slicks opponents seeking publicity for perceived but non-notable wrongs). --Flex 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with this, there are thousands of biographies on Wikipedia that nobody will likely remember in 10 years, but that doesn't mean none of them are notable. The radio show is probably something that helps his case as well, and that Cowen person mentioning him helps as well. I suspect that once the request in the section above to remove bad references is compleated, there won't be many problems here. (though the article will likely be a bit on the short side.) Homestarmy 18:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A show broadcast on one AM station and over the net does not help his case all that much, IMHO. Perhaps if he were on a number of stations in the northwestern US, that would be something, but not every pastor or DJ belongs here. What's the estimated audience of his program? Is his book a best-seller (at least in its niche market)? --Flex 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

An AFD isn't the only option. The material could also be merged with CARM, since that is his source of notability. There are other cases where the webamster's article has been merge with his website, for example Jim Robinson merged to Freerepublic. -Will Beback 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a sensible option since notability outside of the website is rather dubious and even with it, I'm not certain the WP:BIO criteria are met. Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of this information is already redundant with the CARM article, and the edit wars on the two pages have focused on almost identical content. Slick's book appears in only six libraries worldwide according to WorldCat [2] and has an Amazon sales rank over one million. [3] I do not think Slick is notable outside the context of CARM, and that a merge/redirect to that article would probably be the best solution. --Hyperbole 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A merge seems like a good idea. When that is done, we can take another look at their combined notability if necessary. --Flex 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A merge sounds good--I've posted a notice on Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (the main article is currently protected due to an invasion of suspected sock/meatpuppets). Justin Eiler 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the merge. As far as historical significance, Mr. Slick is intrinsically intertwined with the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, so there appears to be little need for two articles. ZincOrbie 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got the proposed merge here. Folks, the first thing to look at on this (IMHO) is to make sure it abides by WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If all those are satisfied, I'm happy that the draft is, at least, a good start. Justin Eiler 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this the new battleground?

Since the CARM article lockup, there appears to be some pushing and shoving on this article now. In the "Criticism" section, I deleted the notation and referenced an AARM commentary where Ratcliff personally gives his reasons for launching the website. This was reverted by Flex and is now being called an unreliable reference? Ratcliff's own words from his own website is unreliable? Perhaps I am missing something. Either the note needs to be removed or the link needs to be reinstated. ZincOrbie 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference in question is this: [4], just in case anyone wants to know. (I had to go look for it since it wasn't re-inserted, the fact tag was simply removed.)Homestarmy 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, on to my opinion, generally, supposed comments by people which are only backed up by a forum post aren't generally seen as highly reliable sources, since alone, they aren't too good at confirming easily that the person who posted the post actually is the person who's identity is asserted. If there was something written somewhere else in a non-forum and more secured environment from Ratcliff saying this same thing, (Or specifically stating that he posts in that particular forum with that handle) then readers wouldn't have to be figuring out if they can confirm the person's identity there or not. It might seem like nitpicking, but when identities can't be easily confirmed like in a forum post, uninvolved readers not familiar with the subject may be left really wondering just how certain the identity of a forum poster really is. Homestarmy 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Homestarmy. Your opinion is reasonable for most circumstances, but not here. Much or most of the comments and theology of Matt Slick are derived from his website, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Because it is Slick's site there is little doubt of the reliability of comments posted there under his name. The same applies to John Ratcliff. Being it is Ratcliff's site, and the link in question has been there for two years without deletion by the webmaster (in fact, the thread originates in a section where only Ratcliff and administrators have access), it is more than a reasonable assurance that the comments are directly from him. ZincOrbie 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

While it might be hosted on his own site, surely he has some web page of his own or something that confirms his forum identity? Matt's site isn't a forum, so the sort of problems with identity there don't apply quite as much. Homestarmy 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you now. I was flustered by what I perceived as selective reverting. I corrected a link for Matt Slick's "homepage" (which is now "calvinistcorner") without a revert. But my attempted fix for the AARM citation tag was reverted. Seriously, I am neutral in the battle that's been going on; I frequent both forums. I just wanted to make sure links and references were accurate for both parties. ZincOrbie 02:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm even more neutral: I don't use (and have never used) either forum, and I'd never heard of Slick or Ratcliff before or since apart from the WP. I seek only a neutral, well-sourced article. Forum posts fail as reliable sources, but that doesn't mean that the statement in question should be deleted (it doesn't seem controversial, after all) -- just that a reliable source should be located if possible. --Flex 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the Slick and CARM articles will be merged when the latter's protection is lifted, so the whole point may be moot as a result. ZincOrbie 04:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)