Talk:Matt Slick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please do not rever the annon edits, I agree that they were unencyclopedic and do not belong on wikipedia. Falphin 02:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A note to future users, I am taking out the perspective and it will be replaced with a controversy section similar to Billy Graham. Please wait before reverting. Falphin 13:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this because it is not in wiki format and it describes attacks not events or beliefs. Now I am going to add a Criticism section and increase the size of the article similar to Billy Graham or the official wikipedia Biograpy format. . It will be added I promise but right now I have an appointment to go to. I will also merge the useful content of this into the article. Falphin 17:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, everything in the below section would probably be more appropriate on the CARM article rather than in Slick's biography. Most everything that draws criticism is under the banner of CARM, even if Matt is responsible for most of it. Mdavidn 21:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved the "perpsectives" text below to CARM because, as Mdadidn points out, it mostly concerns the website. We can edit it in context there. I added back Slick's personal info, we should also add his date of birth, education, and other biographical info that we can find. Listing his book is not self-promotion. We list the books of all kinds of writers. There was a link to "paltalk", some kinnd of chat system, that didn't seem to have a purpose here. I'd be happy to add it back if anyone can explain the relevance. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I edited the "perspectives" text on CARM to reflect what I feel are the actual complaints with CARM itself; I think that brings into focus the difference between Slick complaints and CARM complaints. Slick's debate tactics and attitude toward unbelievers are in the former category; CARM's convoluted rules and use of moderation to quash dissent are in the latter. I'm neutral on the issue of Paltalk being on Slick's page: he holds weekly voice meetings there, on a "CARM" room, where he proselytizes to everyone, so it's at least marginally relevant. --Hyperbole 23:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's all fine except that we don't know who is criticizing Slick/CARM. We need to have specific cites, not from a forum, about these criticisms. There are several links to critics (some of which keep getting deleted) on the CARM article that we can use to provide sourced criticisms. Regarding the PalTalk link, I found a page on CARM that gives Slick's PalTalk schedule. If we want to mention it that is were the link should go. However if we link we should indicate why it's relevant, something like "Slick holds weekly meetings on PalTalk". Cheers, -Willmcw 23:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Would specific people from CARM work or not? I imagine I could get something from HRG(who is a profesor) or somebody like that Falphin 23:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any reasonable, verifiable source is acceptable. Blogs and forums are not generally considered acceptable sources for anythng. Newspapers, magazines, etc are the best. One-person websites, while not ideal, are generally accepted, though it depends on what they are being used to support. (If it's a controversial theory on some conspiracy, for example, they might not sufficient) But they are probably more acceptable to use as an example of criticism. A comment out of the blue from an anonymous source would be no better than my making something up. Since there are several websites with long critisms, we should be able to use those to represent the general criticisms. The "Slick Lies" page has been responded to by Slick, so it has been validated as criticism, even if Slick sucessfully refuted all the arguments in it. I haven't read over all the critical sites. Again, separating the CARM criticism from the Slick criticism may be tricky. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

PS - if the professor has posted the criticism on his own website, then that might be sufficient. -Willmcw 00:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why is a distinction made between blogs and one-person web sites? Mdavidn 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell how many people actually work on individual websites, so almost any website could be a one-person shop. There is not a formal distinction between blogs and other websites, but the general opinion around here seems to be that blogs are never acceptable, and other websites are open for negotiation on a case-by-case basis. -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the official guideline.

• From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Visiting a stranger's personal web page is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group.

For the record, it does not distinguish between blogs and one-person websites. My comments to that effect do not reflect official policy. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Perspectives

Critics of CARM and Slick are commonly those with worldviews other than conservative Protestant Christianity. Their most common complaints center around Slick's treatment of those who do not share his beliefs, his use of moderation and questionable tactics in debates, and the effectiveness of his methods in spreading the Gospel. Slick has had several long-standing disputes with these critics that have spilled off CARM's forums, spawning several related websites; the two most significant have been created by Universalist Christians and atheists.

Supporters of Slick find CARM a viable and effective environment for discussing a wide variety of both Christian and secular topics, and praise Slick's willingness to discuss a wide assortment of issues with both Christians and secularists. Supporters also assert that CARM's track record speaks for itself, citing the fact that CARM is one of the more active Christian discussion communities on the Internet and that its core user group is comprised of people of widely varied worldviews.

Moved to CARM -Willmcw 00:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm

Removed and edited added sections on atheist website opinions of Slick, or CARM, Slick opposing sites removed. In checking to other apologetic wiki entries and articles there are no pages to atheist websites or to opposition desiring to attack the atheist position on any other religious apologetics websites. Atheist articles do not include Christian opposing views and there are obviously groups that would have opposing views to atheist groups. To inclued pages that are slandering by opinion is not with the spirit of NPOV. If you check Mormon apologetics or other apologetics articles it is not noted to opposition websites being linked. Please chech atheists articles, or Mormon articles as there are no Christian links to opposing views. Why does this article have to show the opposing view that is more about slander and libel of the person, yet the other religious articles on Wiki do not have opposing views linked on their pages? According to Wiki guidelines and policies as quoted below, there are to be no personal attacks on Wiki where the foundation may be found responsible for the slander. To link such websites to the CARM website is to expose Wikipedia to possible "legal sanctions" according to the official policies. There may also be copy right violations, has anyone contacted Mr. Slick for permission to use his writings or name on Wiki? His name and the CARM name may be copy righted to requiring permission.

"Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article." Per Wikipedia guidelines and official policies. Interested Party

If you think that the article on atheists should have responses from Christian or Hindu groups then you are welcome to go to those articles and talk about adding them. But please do not remove other viewpoints on Matt Slick from this article. It is our aim to present subjects with a neutral point of view, which means that all points of view are reported on. If there is a specific libel then please let us know. If you are going to contribute to the encyclopedia then please read our key policies, wikipedia:five pillars. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to proceed to the next level to appeal your edits. You are violating the guidelines of wikipedia and exposing wikipedia to slander, libel charges per the guidelines and official policies. The website discussion board linked on the articles is noted to libel and slanderous accusations to the CARM ministry and founder Mr. Slick. I suggest you make yourself aware of the policies of wikipedia. Propaganda is not permitted. The website linked is a propaganda website. If you would like to see the information collected on the fact that it is a 'shock' site with libel and propaganda, please enclose an email and I will forward the content to you personally. Please inform your superiors on Wiki that we need fair and unbiased mediation to removal of the libel and slander and request arbitration from someone other than yourself. I have given the links to the guidelines and the policies, 'shock' sites are to be removed immediately. The content of the link is pornographic in some areas, obscene in language, libel and slanderous with no facts presented on the discussion boards. Please list the name of your superior here and we will contact their person with the facts. 198.65.167.221 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Interested Party

Free speech pertains to the Gov't. It is not a license to defame and libel an individual or organization in writing. The atheists discussion boards linked on this article are in violation of the law to defamation and libel and wikipedia does have guidelines against such slander and shock sites.

http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machineWikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 2 Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. 2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for topical lists to assist with the organisation of articles.

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. If you want to do so, you may use the Wikipedia fork Anarchopedia. See also meta:Power structure Note 3: If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us here."

Controversy

Again edit necessary to the "opinions" of critics. Where do we find such opinions as fact? If you do not have a source then it is propaganda and subjective opinion. The editor writing what critics have to say should give the name and source of such critic as a name and a quote from the critic. This article is being used to slander and libel an individual which is against wikipedia guidelines. One more time there should be an appeal to the foundation that the editors of this article are attempting to use propaganda and "heresay" to defame a person which is considered unlawful, see "internet libel" websites, one may not just say what they please without documentation, proof, as wikipedia states in guidelines it is not to be used for "propaganda." 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Interested Party

Adding links to critical sites is not propaganda. If you think that there is a libel in the article then please point it out. Libels in external links are not our concern. Please do not remove critical information. Regarding a "next step", a traditional way of gettig other perspectives on an article is to file a wikipedia:request for comment, in which you would, without signing it, describe the dispute in very neutral terms and provide a link to the talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

A formal complaint to blocking an edit will also be included, please give the reason here for blocking an IP when there have not been violations to wiki discussion or edit. Posting to the discussion per the person being blocked unable to now post in the discussion. You have blocked an IP without cause. The webstie linked to atheist discussion boards is not a "critical view point" but internet discussion boards of annoymous attacks on individuals and minus documentation.

I am asking you now to examine the link to the AARM web boards, specifically the WHINE section going back to OCT of last year with personal insults and attacks on the character of Mr. Slick that are in fact a violation of internet libel laws. It is not a website where an author is giving a NPOV but discussion boards with slander and libel of Mr. Slick and the CARM organization. The opinions that have attacked his character without proof are propaganda, slander, libel and against the law. If you read the discussion boards that are linked, you will find the libel and slander which is against the law in just about every country in the world.

May I have your actual name listed here please? I plan to take this to the next step to filing a complaint concerning this article. You are not acting appropriately to protecting wiki foundation from slanderous libel accusattions. You need to state here and now that you take full responsibility for the link to a "propaganda" and a libel forum that is attacking personally individuals administrating the CARM ministries. If you believe the web boards are not guilty of libel then you should be willing to give your name here so that the appropriate action may be taken in regards to the administrator and editor linking to libel web boards. I suggest you seek the advice of legal counsel to read the websites linked in order to properly determine that the website is indeed guilty of internet libel. Please give me your name and we will take this up with your superiors. May I have the name to your superior please? 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Posted FOR Interested Party

Legal threats, which this seems to be, are grounds for blocking a user permanently. Wikipedia:No legal threats Please do not do so again. -Willmcw 20:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

......I have read the posting again and see no legal threats. We are aware that legal threats are not permitted and is the reason none were made. The statement that you should seek counsel to read the webpage is simply for you to ascertain what is or is not considered "internet cyberlibel" in what the wiki articles are linked to. Wiki states in guidelines they do not want to be sanctioned by anyone and is the reason I suggested that you make yourself aware of the libel laws in order to protect the foundation as its representative. There are no threats at all...... I see no threat whatsoever in what was posted. Please show us the statement that threatens legal action so that we can check into such threat? What is stated is that some of the websites linked are violating internet libel laws and you should check into it per counsel. There have been no legal threats at all. I suggest you remove the block...... HERE is the quote from WIKI guidelines................"Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article." Per Wikipedia guidelines and official policies. Interested Party"

The Wikipedia page merely points out that critics have specific complaints about Slick. That is a true fact, and thus, it is not libel. This is a lot of verbiage where no problem exists. As for concerns about libel on external sites, that is not Wikipedia's problem, and Wikipedia is not liable for what external links say. The bottom line is that those external links provide the most complete understanding possible of perspectives on Matt Slick, and as such, they are appropriate for an encyclopedic page about him. --Hyperbole 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The block on user:130.94.121.241 was applied because of a violation of the 3RR rule on another page. If you are that same user then you are editing in bad fatih by eluding that block. Since you sign your contributions the same way it appears that you are. Please respect the policies of Wikipedia and take a break from editing for the proscribed period. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The controversy section still needs editing, no documentation

"Controversy Critics of Matt Slick commonly hold worldviews other than conservative Protestant Christianity. Their most common complaints center around what they consider his misuse of moderation to quash opposing viewpoints and his intentional misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints [2], his questionable tactics in debates, his general conduct when talking to those who do not share his beliefs [3], and the effectiveness of his methods in spreading the Gospel. Slick has had several long-standing disputes with these critics that have spilled off CARM's forums, spawning several related websites. The two most significant have been created by Universalist Christians and atheists."

.... 1. Please show a scholarly name, published documentation or quote where this above opinion is documented as fact. It is our opinion that unless you have documented proof in a name and quote with evidence to accuse a person of "quashing opposing views, intentional misrepresentation, questionable tactics," it is most definitely SLANDER, and LIBEL attacks on the character of the person of Rev. Matt Slick as to basically accusing a minister of the church to accusing him of being a "liar," and in our opinion, unless you have documentation of a person with a name and quote that can prove such accusations are accurate, you have exposed the wikipedia foundation to "libel sanction" as we are simply reminding you of the fact that without documentation of a person where wikipedia foundation may have documentation of such opinions of libel, then you expose them. Remember, the foundation has stated it should be removed and is not tolerated. If the statements in the controversy are true then you should be able to provide the documentation to back up the statement. And no, a discussion board gossip chat room is not documentation of fact. The above controversy should be edited out until such a time that the administrators can provide the documentation with names and quotes.

"Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.

19:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)~ Interested Party and friends...

The block on user:130.94.121.241 was applied because of a violation of the 3RR rule on another page. If you are that same user then you are editing in bad fatih by eluding that block. Since you sign your contributions the same way it appears that you are. Please respect the policies of Wikipedia and take a break from editing for the proscribed period. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

.....We are several users posting in good faith and agreement of opinions with just one of us typing at this time and it is our opinion that because there appears to be a biased number of editors to this article, user names from a 'shock site, propaganda' type of website admitting to their writing for this wikipedia article as we have documented. It is necessary to post as a group with several different IP's because of our edits being blocked and our correct edits in using and according to wikipedia guidelines, being removed by those with an apparent agenda to stop us from giving our opinions on the edits and the persons that are noted members and users on a 'anticarm website' are making the decisions on this articles as to what is to be included in the article.

We have asked for guidelines, rules, documentation that wikipedia articles should link to discussion forums, shock sites or post "opinions" of Rev. Slick with attacks on his character as fact. You have not yet shown us the guideline or rule that states you may attack the character of Rev. Slick without documentation in the controversy section. If it is fact, simply give us the documentation by a name and quote of such facts and we will not suggest further edit.

There appears to be a bias in the editing of this article. If you will go to the link under dispute for proof of the idenity of the editors, you will note that most of the editors contributing to the article on CARM and Rev. Matt Slick are particpants on the atheism discussion boards, such like "disgruntled employees" writing an article about their "former company" and our opinions are actually viewing their boasting of their intention to writing this article and the administrators here seem to ignoring the fact that there is no documentation to their charges. Many of the persons editing and writing this article were removed from our boards for rule violations or improper behaviors with documentatoin. They are here to write the article on CARM? Don't you find it strange that a group from an anticarm website discussion board of atheists and their friends are writing an article on the CARM ministries and their founder? It is our opinion that the agreements to what should be included that are in the history and discussion here on the editing of this article are by user names that participate on a discussion board that is in our opinion about 'propaganda'and by persons such as disgruntled employees fired from their job and then attacking the company. Is quite obvious in our opinion that the wikipedia foundation is being used by those with an agenda and again that IS our opinion and obvious to anyone with just a bit of common sense that the guidelines are not being followed in this article. CARM has no problem with an unbiased article from a NPOV but persons from anticarm websites are hardly those that will be unbiased 19:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)198.65.167.211 19:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Interested Party and Friends.......

Have you tried following the [2] and [3] links? They document that those criticisms do, in fact exist. In fact, the first link is Matt Slick himself *admitting* that those criticisms exist. Everything in the "Matt Slick" article is demonstrably true, "Interested Party," and thus there is no basis for legal action. Everyone here knows that, and all these threats are doing is getting your IPs blocked. The idea that pointing out that someone who makes himself a public figure can sue for libel when it's pointed out that critics even *exist* is absolutely ludicrous. You can try to muzzle criticism of Slick through CARM moderation, but the idea of using U.S. law to do the same is laughable. Now - please stop evading your ban and kindly leave. --Hyperbole 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI from internet law site linked earlier concerning what you claim is a "public figure." "If you criticize or poke fun at a public figure make sure that it is not done with Malice. That means you do not have knowledge of the falsity of what you are writing and you didn't totally disregard the truth. Don't relay damaging information created by others without verifying the facts supporting it. It's not a defense that you are simply relaying someone else's Libelous statement because merely publishing a third party's Libel will make you guilty of Libel too." "http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html

There is no ban or block on the IP, we simply opened the edit and posted. There are no threats to any lawsuits by anyone and it would seem you are simply trying to decide which edit should be included as to your personal opinions to what should be included by threatening to ban or have removed those that disagree with your opinion. Isn't that the same accusation posted in attack of Rev. Slick? hmmmmm You are admitting that you will ban or remove anyone having a different opinion on the guidelines? Are you a representative of wikipedia and why is your decision or interpretatin of the guidelines on an edit carrying more weight then someone else editing the article to protect the wikipedia foundation? You bring up moderation, are you a moderator here that removes someone disagreeing with you? Anyone is permitted to edit on the articles with the interest of truth or are you saying only those with your POV are permitted to contribute to this article? The only reason the wikipedia guideline was posted is because it is their rule not to expose them to a "libel sanction." The only "legal sanction" posted was of the wikipedia guidelines and rules as the reason for the edit, not to threaten a law suit by anyone. I don't see Rev. Slick or anyone representing his person posting here. If you choose to ignore the wiki guidelines and rules is certainly up to you and the administrator editing on this article. It is our opinion, FYI, the links to the discussion forums do slander and libel individuals other than Rev.Slick. "publishing a third party's Libel will make you guilty of Libel too. " 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)68.44.255.244 Interested Parties.....

What libel are we publishing? Is listing the name of a libellous book in itself libel? I don't think so. I also don't believe that anyone here has shown malice towards Slick. Regarding blocks - they apply to the user, not the IP. If you find yourself blocked for cause, then changing IPs is simply bad faith, and will result in that IP being blocked as well. That said, the block has now expired so please avoid the reverting behavior (which occured on a different article) which led to your block. -Willmcw 23:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to the libel questions, again.........

...Do you listen at all to what we are trying to tell you? The websites/discussion boards that you have linked to this article have slanderous, libelous statements on several individuals by name according to the opinion of many reading the boards linked, which is what we have been trying to tell you for days now and you refuse to listen for some odd reason. No, we are not referring to the fact that they use foul language, also a violation of the rules for wiki links to being in "good taste," but they have also accused individuals in using their real names of various mental illnesses, learning disabilities, of lying, adulterous behaviors, and it is against the LAW in most every country to being "defamation" unless proven to be fact and it is not publishing a third party's Libel will make you guilty of Libel too." "http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html You are publishing the website in this article, promoting the libel comments that have not been proven that are damaging to the reputations of the persons they are accusing, and to be read by more people by linking it here and any party, publisher/website involved to helping to promote the "libel" may be held accountable for the "defamation" including wikipedia if promoting the websites by linking the websites in their articles. We will be preparing the request for mediation here on this and appealing this article in the next week, actually should/may request the entire article be deleted since it is obvious you do not understand the internet libel laws in that you are insisting to promoting "libelous" website links on this page, but is truly unnecessary to have to go any further, if you will please simply take the time to READ the internet cyberlibel laws then check the discussion boards you have linked. Why would you risk the reputation of wikipedia, WHEN, discussion boards are not normally linked, and wiki has in the guidelines NOT to expose them to "legal" sanctions. Is the link that important to this article? The persons are attacking individuals by name, it is against the law to do so if the comments are not proven fact. You cannot accuse someone of a "mental disorder" without proof and that is what has been posted on the boards linked here... My you are truly not listening to what we are trying to tell you. Would you like us to show you the statements from the websites that are considered libelous in content posted on the boards you have linked? 07:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)07:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Interested Parties... .

Thanks for your patience. Please know that we do not and cannot take responsibility for the contents of websites that we link to. This is included in our disclaimer (the link is on every page):

• None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

In your page of internet libel law there is no case which holds liable a website that just linked to another site. We certainly are concerned about the accuracy of our the material that we do publish here, and if there is any libel here then please point it out. Also, if some website has been found in a court of law to be libelous then I'm sure we'd want to stop linking to it until the libel is removed. However this is not a court of law in which we can find some third-party website guilty of libel. If you truly feel they are libelous then I suggest you focus on getting them to remove the libel. Regarding "good taste", please spend some time looking over a site which we don't link to because of lack of good taste in order to see what is meant by that term. http://www.rotten.com. Viewer discretion advised. Using a few cuss words or calling your leader a loony do not count as "poor taste" in the rough-and-tumble world of the Internet. Patiently yours, -Willmcw 07:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

In response to Willwmc

You posted:*None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

This is not an appropriate defense for the actions as editor at this point, the difference being that you do have the ability now to edit a link to the "defamation" and you have been informed. The facts are that once you have been informed of a "libelous" link or link to inappropriate content, you are now responsible to take action as a result of a complaint. Legally a "publisher" is responsible to remove the libel if they are informed whether or not there is a disclaimer, once informed, you are to take action. Have you examined all the contents of the links, have you read all of what is contained in the link to discussion boards, of what has been linked in this published article? If you are negligent to examine the content of the link for "defamation," and read all of the content posted at the link, you are responsible once you have been informed of a complaint. If an editor is then informed of such "defamation" and does not take action, you may also then be responsible as a third party publisher of "defamation" Now that you have been informed, as the record shows, in this discussion many times, you have responsibility to remove the content or links to "defamation" or to examine the contents and the complaints as a responsible editor to the wikipedia foundation. What does the law tell you?

"3. Basis of Liability for Cyberlibel: a) Distributor/Publisher Characterizations: One of the most important issues in cyberlibel is whether the online service providers, operators of bulletin boards "or website owners are common carriers, distributors or publishersThe distinctions are as follows:

.....ii) Distributors, such as booksellers, news vendors and libraries, have no liability for libel unless they are negligent.

iii)Publishers, such as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters, are responsible and liable for everything that they produce, post and broadcast. Their liability is grounded in the fact that they can edit what they wish to include and exclude from their publication, be it a newspaper, magazine, television broadcast, website or newsgroup."

.....2. Current Principles Governing Liability: Currently, the law governing owner/operators of computer bulletin boards or websites can be distilled into the following principles:

In the Cards Inc. v. IT'S IN THE CARDS, INC. v. Fuschetto 193 Wis.2d 429, 535 N.W.2d 11 (C.A.).

b) Owners and/or operators of networked computers are liable for defamatory material which they write and publish on the network, or receive from third parties and cause to be published on the network. Consequently, a corporation could be vicariously liable for statements published by employees.

c) If a third party publishes defamatory material on the network and the computer redistributes that material, the owner and/or operator of the computer may be liable, but only if:

i) they or their agents knew that the material was defamatory; or ii) they or their agents had reason to be suspicious that some or all of the material was defamatory. ............

3. Basis of Liability for Cyberlibel: a) Distributor/Publisher Characterizations: One of the most important issues in cyberlibel is whether the online service providers, operators of bulletin boards or website owners are common carriers, distributors or publishers.

"A second New York case, Stratton Oakmount v. Prodigy 23 Med. L.R. 1794 (S.C., Nassau County 1995), involving a libel action by Stratton Oakmount, arose out of an allegedly defamatory posting on a finance oriented bulletin board on the Prodigy Online Service........ On a motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff, the court found that Prodigy was a "publisher" for the following reasons:"

.....ii) Prodigy had posted "content guidelines" to its users regarding what Prodigy regarded as proper and appropriate for posting on Prodigy's bulletin boards .... iv) Prodigy retained "board leaders" to enforce the guidelines. ......v) Prodigy employed technological means to delete postings that violated the guidelines.

"RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLICATION

1. -(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that -

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher,

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to the publication of the statement complained of, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement."

....c) Implications of these Developments:

These developments place owners and/or operators of bulletin boards, whether they are online services or service providers, or companies or organizations hosting a bulletin board on their home page, in a difficult position.

i) By exercising responsibility and attempting to regulate the nature of the content, the online service provider may then become a publisher and can be sued for libel. On the other hand, if they do absolutely nothing, they could be sued for negligence for failing to maintain security procedures, or for negligent misstatement.

ii) Additionally, the advantage of being characterized as a distributor may be illusory. As soon as a complaint is posted, which can be moments, seconds or days after the offensive message occurs, the plaintiff would be obliged to remove the offensive message. If they do not do so, they will lose the protection of their status as a distributor.

d) Effects on Business:

Organizations may feel compelled to remove unauthorized materials, thereby exercising editorial discretion because they may not want to be responsible for the posting of defamatory materials, or to be associated with the publication of such materials. Moreover, organizations may want to ensure that bulletin board users are adhering to the bulletin board topics, since that is one of the attractions of subscribing to that particular bulletin board." David Potts Counsel to Deacon, Spears, Fedson & Montizambert Barristers & Solicitors

.....You would be wrong to assume that a court or agency must first prove to you that the linked articles are "libelous" by court order, jury findings, but as stated by the libel attorney, AS SOON AS a complaint is posted, you are "obliged" to remove it. Not when it has been proven by a court or a website "taken down" for the "defamation" but the moment you receive the complaint. Or the organization may be found responsible as a publisher of the material. It takes a certain amount of time to proceed with legal sanctions, however as a third party publisher, if you are informed, you are responsible to remove it. As instructed to do so in the wikipedia guidelines already posted in the discussion, they are not to be exposed to possible "legal sanctions." Again the request, either delete the full article until such a time as it can be determined by examination of the complaint or delete the linked webpages please16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)207.67.144.61 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Interested Parties

The moment you show us the libellous material that is posted here on Wikipedia we will try to resolve the complaint. All you've done is claim that a linked website has unspecified libels contained in it. None of the legal citations that you have provided goes to the issue of simply providing a link to a website. If you truly believe that there are websites which libel you, then I suggest that you address your concerns to those websites. There is nothing libellous in this article that you or anyone has identified. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

...Now really think about what you posted. May as well throw out all the internet libel laws since one need only post a link to "libel" someone? All one need do is write a NPOV article about a person and then post a LINK to the slander and libel portions? Please tell me you see how ridiculous that is as a defense. Anything linked is published, it is simply on another page but if the contents can be accessed by the LINK then it is certainly part of the article. Imagine a News paper saying SEE page 10 for the slander....same thing.00:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)~ Interested Party

A newspaper that publishes a libel on page 10 is still publishing it. We are not publishing any of these external links. A better analogy would be a publication which mentions the title of another book, which someone calls libellous. Note that the Wall Street Journal and NBC have been accused of loibel, but we wouldn't remove our links to their websites simply because of such accusations. Regarding the standards of fairness here, we link to both positive and negative websites. It'd be equally unfair to write an NPOV article and then only link to websites praising the subject. NPOV means presenting all the significant sides of an issue. As for the exact website in question, I took a look and couldn't find anything obviously libellous. I did see people expressing their opinions. -Willmcw 01:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the wiki editors that believe the Links are in "good taste" or no POTENTIAL LIBEL?

http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum6/2492.html http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum6/1431.html

Posted to a person Jimmy Sloan Aug. 11 and you believe this ISN’t LIBEL, appears to be libel as defined in cyberlaw. Accusations of child abuse, mental disorders, and threats of violence. This is just a taste of what is posted on the website that you claim is in “good taste” and should be linked to wikipedia as a distributor and publisher. They criticize CARM for editing post and yet remove the post they don’t like to a trash board and then mockingly threaten violence, with appearances of libel and slander, and you help them with links. I will post the most recent, then post another link for you to discussions to raping, mutilating and cutting up the body of a CARM moderator?

text deleted

Dear CARM-ite, if you post (supposedly) libellous material here then you are responsible for disseminating it further. I never claimed that the forums are in "good taste", simply that the practical definition for "poor taste" is considerably lower than using a few nasty words. Threats of violence, name calling, and opinions are not libel. While this material certainly is crude and unfriendly, I don't think that it is genuinely libellous, or even seriously threatening harm. Regardless, we are not responsible for the websites that we link to. If you dislike the material there then I suggest you speak to the forum moderators and owners. We have no control over it, nor of the content of any of the websites that we link to as part of our effort to give our readers comprehensive, NPOV overviews of the topics in this encyclopedia. Again, if there is any actual problem with this article, aside from the external links, then please let us know. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

.....But you suggest that you did not SEE any slander and libel on the linked discussion boards, that such comments are not libel. You ask fore the evidence and then delete it? Do you realize how you contradict yourself from one day to the next? To state a person by name is a child abuser is LIBEL if it is not true, are you suggesting it is true so is NOT libel? Why did you delete it, if it is not libel, if it is acceptable it should still be here? By the way, visit the other Christian writers listed, there are no links to personal attacks or websites attacking their person. Hank Hanegraff has MANY groups that attack his ministry, and there are no slander links included.....this is obvious. Which aarm poster are YOU?

Posting a link is sufficient to allow anyone interested to go see for themselves the material, thanks. (But if it is libellous, then why are you copying it around?) I really don't care what people on forums say. There are plenty of websites that we link to that I do not choose to spend time at myself. I don't visit CARM or AARM, except for a couple of quick views in regard to discussions about this article. There are many articles about religous groups and people which have links to websites with negative material, including everything from Mother Theresa and Opus Dei to Sathya Sai Baba and Prem Rawat. It's all part of the Wikipedia core policy of neutral point of view, which requires that we include all significant points of view on a matter. -Willmcw 00:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

..... ADDED to aarm link, a new link CARM response to aarm board quotes and accusations. If the link is going to be there, then the response should be listed. Thanks.. "Significant points of view by scholars, news groups," not a minority of users on a discussion forum. Do you realize that you may not post something as fact legally, unless you know it is fact and can prove it is fact and you have not done so in the CARM article or the Matt Slick article but have posted opinions. This is found in the wikipedia guidelines and you have constantly ignored the rules. We posted a sample of the posts on the discussion board, that you claim is appropriate and that you did not see as libel. Why did I post it, I did not, wikipedia posted it here. You are the publisher and website distributing the links, and you are to remove them. This is not my website and the discussion boards linked are not under my control to delete or edit. BECAUSE it is already linked here on your article, you have distributed the libel, I found the link HERE. We are not the publisher, wikipedia is the publisher AND the distributor and you are the administrator with the responsibility to remove it. You may not claim that a LINK to an article removes the resposibility from wiki, it does not legally. Have you done ANY investigation or questioning of the internet cyberlaw? And the wiki foundation has stated that you are to protect them from "legal sanctions" and you are not doing so. You are WRONG again in your statement that a link is not publishing, it is written here, the web address is published by wiki, I used the link and found what appears to be libel. It is not my responsibility to tell the persons at the links or report them or ask them to remove it, WE are not linking to their webpages, you are. You have received the complaint, you are exposing wikipedia articles to possible slanderous, libelous websites. Please see the bold text below and remove the links to protect the wikipedia foundation 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)207.67.144.58 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Very Interested and Concerned Parties

Web Site Legal Issues: Navigating the Landmines

"Operating in the virtual world entails the same - or potentially greater - legal risks as operating in the real world. These risks take many forms: copyright infringement, trademark infringement, copyright ownership, liability, breach of confidentiality, libel and slander, just to name a few."

"Unless you specifically disclaim otherwise, you are implicitly endorsing other sites when you link to them. Thus, a dissatisfied - or worse, ripped off - user of one of the sites that you link to could sue you for "recommending" them."http://www.netconcepts.com/legal-landmines.htm

Please re-read our disclaimer. -Willmcw 06:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

CARM-ite or "Very Interested and Concerned Parties"- Get a username. There are a number of IP addresses which appear to be the same user. They also appear to have been used to evade the 3RR and other policies. If the IPs continue to be used without identification of the them as being used by a single person, then I will regard them as fraudulent attempts to evade our policies. -Willmcw 00:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

PS, the wikipedia disclaimer is not legal....

There are specifics to how it is to be written, it is not, so wikipedia is exposing itself to the links on this article. 04:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Very Interested Parties

Please feel free to write our lawyers. In the meantime, please stop making threats of a libel suit while you are a memeber of this editing community. If you are going to sue us over our content then obviously it is inappropriate for you to be adding or deleting content. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

August 16, added the name of Ratcliff to controversy the aarm owner as his name is listed in wikipedia articles.

August 16, added the name of Ratcliff

to controversy, the aarm owner has his name listed in wikipedia articles.

Please explain how that matters to the editing of this article. I don't know what you mean. -Willmcw 06:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. It'd help if you could use a personal pronoun of some kind, as in "I added the name". Also, please get a username if you are going to be an active editor and talk-page user. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I find it more appropriate to create an AARM page and link it to the controversy section. AARM is relevant to CARM; Ratcliff is relevant to AARM. Ratcliff is only very tangentially relevant to CARM. So I wrote an AARM stub that indicated that Ratcliff is the founder and linked the Controvery section to the AARM stub. I believe this is the best way to handle the issue. --Hyperbole 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Hyperbole, but do you think maybe Billy Graham as mentioned above might also have the same critics? Are you going to run over and list all the people that may not like good ole Billy on his wiki paper too? Exactly what is with you? You make this guy Slick out to be worse than Hitler. It is crap like this type of editing giving wikipedia a bad name. A couple of wacko discussion chat rooms and you list them as "critics?" What is with the 'gospel' comments? The guy is one of the top Christian writers on the internet and you use his own papers on critics to slam the guy? Show us some documentation of his peers criticizing, some scholarly or at least ordained pastors, people with MDiv. Not the Mormons, or various Joe Blows on chat boards. Give me a break. Do you have the documentation of even one scholarly link criticizing Slick?Tom S 48 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What scholars comment on Slick, good or bad? Let's add them, whoever they are. But a lack of scholarly criticism is not the same as a lack of criticism. Slick runs a webforum, not a university. -Willmcw 01:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with the sentence "Critics of Slick generally hold worldviews other than conservative Protestant Christianity." In fact, I wrote that sentence, and it was sitting at the top of that section for weeks. Certain CARM members insisted on repeatedly changing it to "Critics of Slick are generally atheists and cult members." Well, that's simply not true. But since CARM wasn't content with "worldviews other than conservative Protestant Christianity," I expanded the sentence to a listing of the most common groups that critics of Slick fall into. After all, that's one major idea behind Wikipedia - rather than give a knee-jerk revert to something you disagree with, try editing it in a way consistent with the other editor. So that's what I've done, and, yes, it seems too POV against Slick to draw out a laundry list like that. So if you want to settle on "worldviews other than conservative Protestant Christianity," well, that's certainly a tighter sentence, isn't it? I personally prefer it, and would have been glad to leave it alone had it not been for its constant editing. --Hyperbole 04:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

___ The guy has a list of moderators and volunteers on his website discussion boards. Are you suggesting all the volunteers and whatever are also in on this conspiracy to 'quash' opponents for Matt Slick? So his moderators also conspire against critics? The names of every group hating Christians should come off. Get the names of all the groups out of there. And what is with the atheist guy and his chat room? Is he some name in the religious world? Looks to me like he just hates Christian websites and started up a group to bash christians. He admits to being a troll and you guy's list his webgroup as a source? Why is that a reliable source of documentation for an encyclopedia? Anybody go to Slick's boards to ask what they think of CARM or are you only interested in the opinions of the dissenters and wacko trolls? If you are going to list the critics comments from nonsense chat rooms and atheist discussion groups it will not be a believeable source for any reader.Tom S 48 01:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed middle of controversy section

It is wordy, and not necessary to list all the words of critics. The links themselves are there. It appears the editors are using the article to give their POV. I don't see that such accusations are worthy of mentioning in the article. Yes, I am FIRM on this.Tom S 48 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree to a ceartain degree. It is wordy, and it is not neccesary to list all words of critics however it is good a good idea, to have the most common allegations listed in the article which I believe it does. I helped created this article, and I am a CARMite. The solution to this is to have documenation from one of the aARM posters concerning an allegation or two and then briefly mention the others and then have CARM's official response, and a similarly have a CARM poster likewise produce a counter-documentation. This keeps NPOV. Finally, the most NPOV thing to accomplish is to add to other biography information making it less awkward. Constant reverting is accomplishing nothing for AARM, or CARM and is making Wikipedia look bad. Falphin 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To Falpin, please document the source for the statements made in the controversy. It is blanked because it is opinion with no source given to PROVE the statements are made by anyone.Tom S 48 23:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• We have sourced the best way possible, nobody doubts the claims but like you would I would doubt the validity of the claims. Falphin 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, there are no reliable sources. Could you please show us where CARM is not spreading the Gospel properly? Could you show us where it is stated that Matt misrepresents the arguments of others? You have a dead link, and two individuals, neither of which are Theologians. The two individuals listed are just that. You suggest that you can charge a man of purposely misrepresenting facts and not spreading the Gospel, when you have THOUSANDS of people in the Guest book alone, including ordained Pastors of Churches that state otherwise. Tentmaker is not an educated theologian, and Troy has been kicked out of paltalk rooms as a wacko, with no Theological training, and that is your source? Please show us or I will edit it again. I don't see proof at all of the comments you just put back.Tom S 48 00:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tom, don't take my words out of context. I did not say anything about CARMs method of spreading the gospel, but that AARM memebers claim they don't do it properly. An article should properly represent all sides of the story in apporiate amounts.(Like I said it could use more Bio info.) The dead link I'm guessing was caused because CARM didn't like it being linked from here. But I could easily replace with another CARM link. Sources, don't have to be thelogians, but reliable i nthe sense of experienced. Falphin 00:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually this is Mr. and Mrs. Tom posting on an off from this pc. Are you saying that the AARM members decide what is written here to attacking Slick's debate tactics? Shouldn't you prove that? If the AARM members ask it to be removed, will you take it off? If we were to get 200 CARM posters to suggest the AARM posters are LYING, and falsely accusing Slick because they were banned for rule violations would that be posted here in the controversy. Why do you not give the other POV to the controversy in the support section stating that the CARM posters suggest all the accusations in the controversy are false accusations? Shouldn't you state the fact that those causing the controversy have an agenda as suspended from CARM, or do you approve of slandering a pastor by people that whine on a chat room and not give the OTHER POV? You don't have documentation of what all aarm posters think. I can give you links were people posting on AARM will rebuke them for their behaviors and insults. The CARM link was the documentation to accusation of misrepresenting facts, questionable tactics, etc. as to back up the words in the controversy. There is no other link you can use. What will you use to source the accusations in the controversy? The editors used the link to back up their POV. Which carm link will list the documention to the claims in the controversy section. And if CARM chose to remove the link then obviously they don't see this as neutral article. If it was neutral, both sides would approve, wouldn't they? The objection from CARM is because the article is NOT neutral and never has been.Tom S 48 00:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Mrs.

• • Sorry, please Mr. and Mrs. Tom understand my point. When the allegations are put under the controversy section it does not make them true. I have probably no more than 7 posts on AARM but probably like 2000 on CARM. However, my loyalty lies to Wikipedias NPOV policy not to CARM while posting on Wikipedia. I would not remove stuff from AARM if 7 asked. If you really want to see what I have done for CARM I suggest reading the old two posts on CARM and the talk on Matt Slick, and CARM. If you can get 200 to say its not true in a big document it would be worth mentioning and posting here. But that doesn't exist now. Finally, I don't believe the allegations are true, but thats my opinion. Heres one of the CARM things. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=162&topic_id=5615&mesg_id=5615&listing_type=search Falphin 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Documentation needed

Their most common allegations are that Slick misuses moderation (either personally or by proxy through board administrators) to quash opposing viewpoints, that he intentionally misrepresents opposing viewpoints.

How can this be NPOV, when it is obvious fact that CARM permits opposing views from up to 6000 posters with different opinions. If CARM did not have JW's, Mormons, Atheists on CARM then this would be a legit argument. How can it be accurate when there are opposing views on all the boards and moderators do not remove the opposing views. This statement above is not true, not documented and not proven by the evidence. The middle section should be removed, it is not a NPOV.Tom S 48 01:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sigh, their belief is that Matt picks who he wants and who he doesn't. It has lots of documenation now thanks to Hyperbole. (not saying it is true, just that many believe it is). The easiest way to counter it is to produce documentation on your side as well. It isn't a small debate at CARM anymore as Matt doesn't even refer to the site as AARM but ****.Falphin 01:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that hyperbole roamed the internet as a self-proclaimed biased person with a POV looking for DIRT on Matt Slick, you can check it out on the Ratcliff discussion. Hyperbole is a poster having over 700 posts on AARM, bragging to using their posters as his sources, mocking wikipedia by using chat room ladies to post as sources, and you tell us that he is the person that should be controlling this article? It is my opinion that he bullied you, manipulated the admins here, and is a person that hates CARM and posts on a CARM hate website? He ADMITS to his bias and POV on the Ratcliff page. He is dishonest if he does not admit to being an active aarm member with an agenda here, biased and using wikipedia to promote his own agenda and is against the rules here, though no one seems to care. I suggest that he be removed from any edits here as a biased editor from a CARM, Matt Slick 'hate' website. I don't believe ANY of the AARM members should be involved here.

Get real editors, that do not have an agenda and then negotiate what are the facts and what is neutral. But PLEASE, do not tell us that wacko self-proclaimed apologists with no credentials should be the sources that wikipedia is permitting here. It is an embarrassment to wikipedia. The facts are that hyperbole posted Matt's paper on himself as documentation, he justifies his controversy section by Matt's paper and link, it is no longer linked,(now going to blogs and discussion boards and chat rooms as links) that is what he claims is the source.

So remove the middle section till we can find an educated, scholarly source to their review of Matt slick and CARM. Hyperbole's documentation no longer exists on CARM. The other two linked here are two individuals that hate Matt Slick, as do all cult leaders with no credentials but simply websites attacking Slick. Anyone can put up a website attacking someone or start a discussion board to attack Slick or anyone. I could do one tomorrow, does that make it factual or opinions? hyperbole produced NO valid, reliable, scholarly, attacks on Matt Slick's debates or website. In fact, we can list many websites that recommend and link to CARM including ordained pastors, educated theologians. hyperbole is posting "propaganda" as sources. You do know that don't you? He is bullying anyone that disagrees with his POV with edit wars and RV's and anyone can see it that cares to pay attention, obviously the moderator doesn't care and has already said, he doesn't CARE about CARM or aarm. Hyperbole does not belong as an editor, he is self-promoting his own agenda and propaganda, and if he had any decency would remove himself as editor here, as a representative of aarm, he is not capable of a NPOV perspective, it is obvious to any reader.Tom S 48 02:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, Will already ruled on this: Matt is running (among other things) a discussion board, not a circle of scholars. So there's no reason that the existence of criticism would have to be limited to a "scholarly" level. Because Matt's running a discussion board, it's exceptionally unsurprising that his critics are people who post to discussion boards, and if you honestly need a link to prove that such criticism exists, I've provided you with *plenty of them*. Blogs and other discussion boards are going to be some of the most likely places for such criticisms to exist; this is the rare factual proposition - the existence of critics - where it is actually equally appropriate to link to a discussion board as to a static page. --Hyperbole 07:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Blogs, discussion boards and various nonsense links edited..reason

DATED JUNE 12 by Willmcw as ADMIN here: "Any reasonable, verifiable source is acceptable. Blogs and forums are not generally considered acceptable sources for anything. Newspapers, magazines, etc are the best. One-person websites, while not ideal, are generally accepted, though it depends on what they are being used to support. (If it's a controversial theory on some conspiracy, for example, they might not sufficient) But they are probably more acceptable to use as an example of criticism. A comment out of the blue from an anonymous source would be no better than my making something up. Since there are several websites with long critisms, we should be able to use those to represent the general criticisms. The "Slick Lies" page has been responded to by Slick, so it has been validated as criticism, even if Slick sucessfully refuted all the arguments in it. I haven't read over all the critical sites. Again, separating the CARM criticism from the Slick criticism may be tricky. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) PS - if the professor has posted the criticism on his own website, then that might be sufficient. -Willmcw 00:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)" written perm willmcw above in discussionTom S 48 03:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that Will greenlighted the "critics" section on the basis that Slick himself had admitted that such controversy exists. The fact that Slick has deleted that admission from his site doesn't mean that the critics suddenly cease to exist and that the proposition that they exist becomes false. --Hyperbole 07:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited the discussion forums blogs from the controversy section as stated above, they are not considered a source for "anything' per Willmcw. There also is no reason that the boards should be included in the external links. There should be discussion opened as to why have the blogs or discussion boards posted in the external links as there is no purpose to its contributing to the article on Matt Slick. They may be questionable for the CARM section on discussion boards, but not necessary to the Matt Slick page. PS to hyperbole, read the links you listed, several were not controversy on Matt Slick. The one blog on Armstrong was about the CARM debates with someone else, not Matt and was in reference to posters on CARM, there were no references to Matt at allTom S 48 04:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

More documentation for hyperboles links and blogs removed as inappropriate sources. QUOTE from above: "Why is a distinction made between blogs and one-person web sites? Mdavidn 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)It is impossible to tell how many people actually work on individual websites, so almost any website could be a one-person shop. There is not a formal distinction between blogs and other websites, but the general opinion around here seems to be that blogs are never acceptable, and other websites are open for negotiation on a case-by-case basis. -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)"Tom S 48 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The factual proposition that critics exist is best proven by linking to those critics. A blog may not be a good, encyclopedic source to prove, say, that there's a scientific consensus that high fructose corn syrup is as healthy as sugar. But a blog is arguably the *best* source to prove that criticism of a public figure exists, because that's where the criticism is found in the first place. We're not talking about "a comment out of the blue from an anonymous source" here - the multitude of links establish a pattern of various posters at various sites who have all had the same negative experiences with Slick. There's just something plain weird about your argument that a source can't be used as authority to prove *its own existence*. --Hyperbole 07:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

---

My statements are not definitive, so it's better not to quote them. The definitive policies and guidelines are online, and it is those that should be quoted. Some of the applicable references are: Wikipedia:reliable sources, Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:cite your sources, Wikipedia:no original research, and - very importantly - Wikipedia:no personal attacks and Wikipedia:no legal threats.

My unofficial remarks are that there are few, if any, major references on the thousands of webforums on the internet, besides each other. It is only natural that CARM's main critic is another website, and the same for AARM. To exclude mention of either one would be an omission from the other's article. The truth of any assertion on a forum should still be treated with the greatest suspicion. But the general type of postings and such are relevant, IMO.

For example, suppose there were French and English football forums. In the article about "Gaulle-net" we might write that that "on their rival English forum, "Pub-net", an entire section is devoted to criticizing Gaulle-net, in which they energetically discuss the cheese-like smell of the French fans in colorful language". We definitely should not write, "Gaulle-net fans are noted for smelling of Gorgonzolla cheese." (I apologize to any editors who may have been offended by that cheesey comparison). Cheers, -Willmcw 11:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Good, agreed, then let's start following the guidelines. One, you have a member of the AARM "hate" website, documented that is editing this article and removing everyone else with another POV, how about if you first deal with the fact that the man is not able to be neutral and admits it. He is determined to slander Matt Slick with links to gossip chat rooms and discussion boards. How about you go ask some of your peers if they don't see something wrong with a group of atheists and their friends that have a KNOWN website full of hate for Matt Slick and CARM and they are writing this article. Are you interested in this being a NPOV then let's get rid of the propaganda pushers. No one cares what a bunch of internet chat room gossipers said about Matt Slick on the six links he added. Actually most don't even mention Slick personally, and do not belong here. It is ridiculous, and obvious.Tom S 48 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the two websites? CARM has listed at the bottom of their Website a link to discussion forums but CARM is not a discussion board. There are THOUSANDS of papers, articles on the CARM website written by Slick. The discussion forums are simply an added feature for users but a very small part of the ministry. The AARM website is not a website, it is a discussion board chat room. No articles, no papers, no information on aarm. You are comparing two websites that have no similarities. There is no reason whatsoever to add chat rooms to the Slick article, why? The two have nothing to do with each other. Sure, maybe a link to another website that is criticizing the papers written by Slick. If you would take the time to check, Slick hardly ever writes on the discussion boards. They are used by anonymous members, moderated by volunteers and truthfully have nothing to do with Slick.Tom S 48 17:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

1) Every editor has a POV. It doesn't matter what the topic is, or even what the POV is. None of us are omniscient or free from bias. However we have to write this encyclopedia using a neutral point of view. Part of that says that we have to be ready to "write for the enemy", that is, include the opposite viewpoint.

2) In this matter, my opinion is that AARM is a notable source of criticism of CARM, but it is not a notable critic of Matt Slick. If there are specific articles by named authors on the AARM site then it might be appropritate to cite and link to those. There are plenty of identifiable critics of Slick, including John W. Ratcliff, that we don't have to rely on a webforum to document all of the major POVs on Slick. (And all of this vice versa for AARM and Ratcliff).

3) Maybe the CARM article should expound further on the separation of that website from the discussion boards. I'd assumed that they were owned and operated by the same people, but there are different URLs. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted back to an appropriate NPOV

Hyperbole is pushing propaganda, as a member of the AARM "hate" website documented above. Most of the links he provided do not even mention Slick. Has anyone read any of the links? I did. Hyperbole, you are a fanatic here with pushing your agenda, get some perspective.Tom S 48 17:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Every single one of those links mention Matt Slick and support one or more points in the paragraph. The bottom line is that these criticisms of Slick exist. I know it, and you know it. Slick knows it; he's admitted it (even though he removed the admission after it was used as documentation). I personally *have* many of these criticisms of Slick, and I know dozens of others who also do. The question, then, is how to best document them. But you don't seem interested in how to best document them; you seem interested in looking for a loophole by which you can censor it. That runs deeply against the philosophy of Wikipedia and it cannot take place here. Sorry. There will be a section that mentions criticisms of Slick. If you want to work with me in editing it to make it more fair and NPOV, I welcome that. --Hyperbole 21:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole, you have repeatedly, consistently and blantantly ignored the Wikipedia rules and guidelines on several of your editing projects. You are biased, your sources against the rules, they are unverified sources. There are no documentations that any of your sources, are scholars or published in their fields, they are blogs, discussion boards, and personal websites of unverifiable sourcing. I think it is apparent to every editor that you are biased and pushing propaganda. I will clean up the mess you have made. Will add the appropriate guideline for each edit to this discussion and if you continue in this vandalism we will report you to the foundation as the edits you have posted are reflecting poorly on the Wikipedia foundation. Let's start with your links to see IF they meet the reliable source guidelines, so far, I have found none that are reliable sources in your links. Wikipedia rules and guidelines that are being ignored by editors"Reliability Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." Tom S 48 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking about primary or secondary scholarly sources. We're talking about clear and undeniable criticisms that even Slick has admitted exist. It should not be controversial that the criticisms exist; thus, there should be no need to document them at all (and, indeed, for a long time they simply existed uncontested and undocumented). Since you want to censor them entirely, the need for documentation arises - and is best served by simply linking to the criticisms. No, you won't find criticism of Slick in the New England Journal of Medicine - primary sources are simply irrelevant to this edit cycle. What we're talking about is documentation - not scholarly source material. --Hyperbole 22:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal websites as primary sources A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing. [edit] Personal websites as secondary sourcesPersonal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

• Personal websites discussing SLICK are against the rules, and only can be used to discuss the person for their own page. Tentmaker, personal website, can only be used to discuss TENTMAKER in an article ABOUT Tentmaker, it may not be used as a source to discuss Matt Slick in his wikipedia article. The guidelines are specific and is because personal websites, blogs, discussion boards are not RELIABLE in their information, as wikipedia claims, the persons could be insane, and in reading some of the links here recently, I would agree.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." Every link on this page has been a violation of the guidelines as they could be the websites of absolute liars, imposters, and propaganda groups. As I have repeatedly asked, show us a RELIABLE, scholarly, or verifiable source, not a blog, not discussion boards and not opinions of political/religious groups that are biased. If you are going to suggest that a person, Matt Slick has "misrepresented facts in debates" whatever, then you had better prove it, and you are to prove it with primary and secondary sources approved by Wikipedia guidelines or do not write it here.Tom S 48 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

All of your links have an agenda, conflict of interest, unreliable

• The criticisms do not exist according to Wikipedia guidelines on sources and documentation. I could put up a webpage today, that is not sourced criticism, you may not USE IT. Unless you can find a source that is approved by wikipedia, it could be a 'nut case' or 'insane person' that you link here. The links are all going to be removed, the criticism removed, till you can find a reliable source. Not a personal website, not a blog, not a discussion board, not any group with a religious propaganda discussion board or personal webpage, none of your sources are sources. I suggest you read this again; At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

Evaluating sourcesDo they have an agenda or conflict of interest'''', strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront or the Socialist Workers' Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.Tom S 48 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, these sources are being used as "sources about themselves." They are on the page only to document their own existence. Nothing from those pages is being presented as fact; it's the existence of the pages that is a fact. --Hyperbole 23:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you are wrong for many reasons

More guidelines on Reliable sources Personal websites as primary sources

"A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing."

Personal websites as secondary sourcesPersonal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. "

• Personal websites about SLICK are against the rules, and only can be used to discuss the person. Tentmaker, personal website, can only be used to discuss TENTMAKER, not Matt Slick. The guidelines are specific and is because personal websites, blogs, discussion boards are not RELIABLE in their information.

Wikipedia guidelines: "The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." Every link on this page has been a violation of the guidelines as they could be the websites of absolute liars, imposters, and propaganda groups. As I have repeatedly asked, show us a RELIABLE, scholarly, or verifiable source, not a blog, not discussion boards and not opinions of political/religious groups that are biased. If you are going to suggest that a person, Matt Slick has "misrepresented facts in debates" whatever, then you had better prove it, and you are to prove it with primary and secondary sources approved by Wikipedia guidelines or do not write it here.[[User:Tom S 48|

I'm not writing that Matt Slick has misrepresented facts in debates. I'm writing that critics say that Matt Slick has misrepresented facts in debates. And personal websites are used to appropriately establish that fact: they are used as a source of information about the *critics* - who are the owners of the website. This is all Kosher, "Tom." Now that I've removed the blogs (which quite frankly I think were appropriate to begin with, but I'm trying to work with you), you don't have a leg to stand on in removing this obviously true depiction of criticism. --Hyperbole 00:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Show me the guideline, here, now that says you are permitted to use personal websites, blogs, discussion boards as "critics" opinions in controversy. That is false, you are not permitted to according to guidelines that I spent the day reading over and over. Prove, here, now that there are critics. AND, you may not use blogs, personal websites, discussion forums, any biased or politically opposite group website but a reliable source to do it. Or show me the rule/guideline that says you may use sources that are not legitimate. This is not a gossip column newspaper, you are to PROVE the criticisms are valid by using a RELIABLE source, so prove it and give me the rule that says you can. I have given you the rules stated in Reliable source. Prove there are critics of Matt Slick, with a reliable source. Put them here one at a time with the links and I will show you the RULE one at a time that tells you WHY you cannot use it. You are going by your personal opinions, that critics exist, by what you have heard, by things you have read on discussion boards and blogs and according TO the guidelines, you are to PROVE the critics say thus and such, with documentation of a reliable source or I can delete it. Here is the RULE NUMBER ONE and they have it bolded "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor."Tom S 48 01:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This is really very simple. As you yourself quoted, a personal website can be used as a source of information about its author. The websites linked to on the article are sources of information that establish that each author is a critic of Slick and has certain criticisms. Thus it is accurate, true, and supportable to write that specific criticisms of Slick exist - and the article wouldn't be NPOV without it. It is true that the articles would not be adequate support for the proposition "Slick uses dishonest tactics in debates." But your claim that the articles are not adequate support for the proposition "Critics say Slick uses dishonest tactics in debates" is absolutely false. --Hyperbole 01:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not what the guideline means at all. It is simple and you are missing it, have continued to miss it time and time again.

"As you yourself quoted, a personal website can be used as a source of information about its author."

This does not mean, you can go to a personal website attacking Matt Slick, and use that information in the Matt Slick article. You may use Matt Slick's personal website for information about Matt Slick, as you did when linking the controversy, BUT the guideline says, even then to use "extreme caution." You may not use the AUTHOR of a personal website to attack Matt Slick or as a source in the Matt Slick paper. Now read it again, and again. ITS author, ITS author, ITS author.

Tentmaker is the author of HIS personal website, you can use Tentmakers website as a source for information on Tentmaker. You CANNOT use Tentmaker as a source for information on another person. If you write an article on wikipedia about Tentmaker, you may use his personal website, but you cannot, cannot, use his criticism of Matt Slick on the Matt Slick article. Tentmaker's personal website can only be used as a source for Tentmakers wikipedia article. You cannot use personal websites, blogs, discussion boards that do NOT belong to Matt Slick as a reliable source on Matt Slick. Again, according to wikipedia, Tentmaker could be "insane" and you may not use his website as a source to attack Matt Slick. Every link you posted is forbidden in the rules.

Here, wikipedia explains more of it here in guidelines on Resources and Research:

"Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself."

• Ok, now read this, if you want to use the political magazine you may ONLY do so if you are doing an article on the political magazine. Let's compare this to aaarm. If you are doing an article on aarm, you may use the aarm boards, though not recommened as a resource on aarm. But you may NOT use aarm as a source for information on CARM, because aarm is a religious group, o with extreme bias against CARM. You cannot trust as accurate to what is posted on aarm about CARM and it cannot be used as a source. That is what this, "its author" means. You cannot use aarm website as a source of a critic and you cannot use any of the blogs, you listed. They are NOT reliable sources as biased religious groups. And wikipedia says more:

"Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable 01:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Tom S 48 02:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Tentmaker's website *is* used as evidence of Tentmaker's beliefs - in this case, his criticisms of Matt Slick. Similar websites are used as evidence of similar critics' beliefs. When those criticisms are summarized, they support and prove the paragraph on criticisms of Slick. I feel you are intentionally missing the point. --Hyperbole 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Tentmakers beliefs not a Reliable source for Slick article

You are completely 100% wrong and I am not missing the point. You are. I read the guidelines, researched the guidelines, every jot and tittle and you cannot write an article on Matt Slick using the information you find on blogs, personal websites, discussion boards, religious group publications with known opposition to Matt Slick's beliefs as sources for criticism of his person. You cannot do it. The rules and why you cannot use Tentmaker.

We can go through one link at a time and I will give you the rules. Now what you have to do is approach the research in an unbiased way. You come to this as an editor with an opinion against Matt Slick. That in itself should disqualify you. It is like the democrats writing an article on Bush. But if you want us to believe you can write this article, then you need to use RELIABLE sources as your proof or we can delete your sources.

Here are the rules we have to apply again to each source you quote, starting with Tentmaker's .

1. It is a personal website. Not a reliable source on truth. Not to be used as a resource on facts. 2. He is not published, educated in his field, or having any credentials to qualify his website or writings. Not to be used as a resource to facts. 3. He is a Universalist with known opposition to Matt Slicks beliefs. Is biased, member of a partisan group. Not to be used as a reliable source. "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites —— should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

• A. Tentmaker can only be used to give opinion on other Universalists, but again shouldn't be used because of his not meeting other reliable source quidelines.

4. He may be "uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane;" For all the reasons above according to guidelines on sources, any use of Tentmakers opinions or websites should not be referenced or used in this article on Matt Slick. Now move on to the next link, put it here and we will look up the rules on IT.198.65.167.208 02:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things. 1: The way you signed this - 198.65.167.208 - proves that you logged out specifically to evade the 3RR - the fourth revert in 24 hours was made by that "anonymous" account. Nice try - and sloppy work not logging back in. (And, of course, Wikipedia archives every single thing you write under "history," so your attempt to revert this page after the fact has only made you look worse). 2: Tentmaker's website legitimately proves that Tentmaker has certain criticisms. Those criticisms are relevent to Slick. Excluding all such criticisms would make the article unacceptably POV. I feel like a broken record, but that's the bottom line: Tentmaker's website is valid authority for what Tentmaker believes. Everyone has reached this conclusion but you. --Hyperbole 03:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and I see you're the same user as "Interested Party" - this proves it. That was a nice trick you pulled when you first created the "Tom S 48" account, what with acting like you were some fresh face who had wandered in and was shocked by Ratcliff's behavior and this "slander" of CARM. --Hyperbole 03:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No is not proof, this keeps logging me out, AND if you look

you will see that I don't realize I have timed out and TRY to come back in and login right away. Right now, this has me logged out again. How about YOU tell me how to stay logged in, because it bumps me after about an hour.198.65.167.208 03:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, logged in again, whoever is the mod here can check, I have TRIED to log back in each time but don't realize I have been logged in. And yes, if you read above, you will note, we are a Mr. and Mrs. and another friend that are Interested parties. We were told to get accounts and we did.

Now concerning Tentmaker, his beliefs and opinions do not matter to this article as he is a biased author with a personal website, so for the record, his opinion doesn't matter any more then the opinion of Jack the Ripper. He does not meet the guideline standards as a source of opinion. It is a personal website, a partisan group, and his opinion means NOTHING, so cannot be used. The aarm group opinion cannot be used, they are blogs, discussion boards, personal websites of HOSTILE groups to CARM so their opinion is not factual. You cannot use the sources. Now go to the rules, find a RELIABLE source that criticizes Slick, and then write about the controversy. So far, you have no proof from a reliable source that the things you stated in your controversy are facts. They are not, they are opinions of PARTISAN religious groups and do not make it here as encylopedia references.Tom S 48 03:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so your story is that you just coincidentally logged out just in time to make an illegal fourth revert. We'll see how the mods take that when they come across the page. Tentmaker, being one of Slick's critics, can be cited as documentation of what Slick's critics say. That's why we phrase it "Critics say Slick is yadda yadda" instead of "Slick is yadda yadda." The former would be factual and the latter would not. Again, I think you're intentionally missing the point, since you have no legitimate reason to remove these criticisms. Any NPOV article on Slick *must* include a description of what his critics think of him. --Hyperbole 04:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, my story is this is timing out, and we didn't do reverts but changed back YOUR reverts to your garbage critic websites and chatrooms and blogs. You are wrong, you cannot post a WACKO religious partisan website as a critic. I gave you the guidelines. You don't even care what the guidelines state. The groups you are referencing are not Reliable Critics. Do you really think that Wikipedia wrote the guidelines to EXCLUDE critics. Learn to read and don't tell me that we have to log in and out to avoid revert rules. I said it is logging me out every time I go to read the RESOURCE pages, and it is. The IP is the same on TOM S as it is when I post without signing in, so how can I be avoiding a rule. You cannot use CRITICS that are BIASED, you have been given the rules 10 times. You were asked a question last night and I ask it again, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND what you read. You still have not provided the rule that states you can use blogs, discussion boards and personal websites as critics. SHOW ME THE MONEY, or ADMIT you can't and ADMIT you are ignoring the rules. You cannot put the opinions of CRITICS that are wackos here. This is an encylopedia.Tom S 48 04:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use only one account per person. -Willmcw 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information, we know 1000 people, that we

could bring to this article from CARM ministries or supporters of CARM and they would be happy to use their IPs to do REVERTS. We are trying to do this the way we were asked. We signed up for accounts as Interested parties, told Falphin about the account above that we are Mr. and Mrs. and friends, we are studying the rules and guidelines, researching the links to see if they meet the guideline qualifications, and spending a lot of time to looking for a NPOV and Wikipedia quality article, meticulously applying the rules, which you have NOT done as a partisan, biased ANTICARM editor. You are looking for dirt on Matt Slick, going to "hate" websites, blogs and various religious zealot websites to try write your biased, POV nasty character attacks. Don't you dare accuse us again of trying to deceive. The ONLY reason we haven't signed each one is because of timing out and we then try to correct it logging in BECAUSE other critics told us we had SIGN these entries, we login to sign the DANG thing and receive attacks from you. I could care less about signing this each time, who cares, but we were told we HAD TO.

Now I suggest you do your homework, find a published, credentialed unbiased published source for your critics section or remove it entirely as it doesn't ADD to the article to have to resort to posting wackos and psychos websites here. The one guy you had linked was actually kicked out of and unbiased paltalk room the other night because he was rambling nonsense and everyone believed he was simply crazy. And you post his website blog here. Get serious as we are going to check each and every source, if it doesn't meet the guidelines one of us will delete it.Tom S 48 04:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Get real. You'll delete any criticism of Slick you encounter because you're propagandizing for him on his behalf. You've repeatedly broken Wikipedia rules - including the 3RR just today - and here you are talking about your ability to break the rules on a large scale. I can only conclude that you have no interest in NPOV whatsoever; Wikipedia needs to be rid of you. --Hyperbole 04:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Endless reverts will only lead to the page being locked, and those 1,000 people's IPs receiving 24-hour blocks from editing Wikipedia for violations of the three revert rule. FCYTravis 07:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Blogs and personal websites not reliable sources

per the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia references. Removed the various links, edited and corrected the contraversy section to be more accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Per discussion on CARM article talk page, and agreement partisan discussion boards, blogs, personal websites are not wikipedia material and should not be included in encylopedia articles.Peggy Sue 19:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How does that exempt CARM? -Willmcw 19:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

To the administrator Will, I am not Tom S. actually he is my brother-in-law. I am editor Interested Party and you have blocked three different people. This will be reported. Interested Party Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry" and Peggy Sue is my sister.

So Peggy Sue and Tom S are married a dn use the same computer, while Interested Party is a sister who lives elsewhere. Thanks for clarifying that. Now then how can we get away with adding links to CARM and Slick's blog, in light of what you've written above? Aren't they partisan discussion boards or blogs too? -Willmcw 21:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Critique

Allegations by banned users regarding discussion style etc. of the moderator of a moderated forum are about as noteworthy as washing dirty laundry in a divorce procedure and the other discussion boards where those users spread their allegations are no more encyclopedia-worthy as the allegations themselves. That gives no more information about Slick than about any other moderator who ever banned a user. An encyclopedia is no place for mud slinging campaigns. --Irmgard 16:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I kept those links which provide real arguments to positions Slick has, but skipped the rest. Also the alternative forum is (or says it is) an alternative to CARM so it should be there, not here. --Irmgard 16:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The supporters voices are also not very original or enlightening - rather the style of a fan site than of an encyclopedia, so they're gone as well. --Irmgard 16:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________

• Irmgard, I have no problems with your opinions, but on one issue, we really need to discuss seriously. It has been posted here in discussion many times by several of us. The wikipedia guidelines state that you are to use reliable sources. Including the external links and they should not be personal websites, blogs, etc. of someone that you cannot verify in authority. First of all, I am well educated on the topics of CARM and the persons linked here. I know this topic, several others do not. I know the persons and situations intimately. Have done the homework. I looked this up in the rules, giving the guideline here in discussion, now even to an entire section on external links.

You realize the mudslinging, and that is accurate. The problem is, the links you are putting here, "Tentmaker," and the others are former disgrunteld posters of CARM, they are not authors, not experts in their fields, but personal websites of people that were suspended from CARM boards with an agenda to RANT. You removed the discussion boards, excellent, but the people you link here ARE those banned, the same people in your links. I am not much of a writer but worked in library research for several years in a church organization. I have researched all the wikipedia guidelines, rules, and will follow documentation posted below with the guidelines of wikipedia, the external links you have on this article to Matt, are NOT wikipedia, encyclopedia resources.

By the way, check the creator of this wikipedia's personal page, Jim, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales, CARM or Matt Slicks creation gets almost as many hits in popularity as wikipedia, and though there are critics of Jim, personal websites of critics are certainly not linked in his article, only reputable news services, etc. Certainly his is an example of proper wikipedia research? He has critics and wackos writing against wiki and his person but they are not given in links on his page. You are still linking biased, individuals that are in fact like the "divorce mud-slinging"...In fact Tentmaker was the worse offender of CARM rules, propaganda, slander of any poster ever on the CARM boards. If you are going to include the website of this quack, you should identify the fact that he has no qualifications as a critic, and is NOT even close to a reliable source. Tentmaker and the David Kathylon, and the last fellow on the list, are simply not qualified, reliable sources for an encylopedia. Here, again, wiki guidelines to external links.Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia“http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html What are the author's credentials on this subject?

• Does the purported background or education look like someone who is qualified to write on this topic?
• Might the page be by a hobbyist, self-proclaimed expert, or enthusiast?
• Is the page merely an opinion? Is there any reason you should believe its content more than any other page?
• Is the page a rant, an extreme view, possibly distorted or exaggerated?
• If you cannot find strong, relevant credentials, look very closely at documentation of sources (next section).

"Anyone can put anything on the web for pennies in just a few minutes. Your task is to distinguish between the reliable and questionable. Many web pages are opinion pieces offered in a vast public forum. You should hold the author to the same degree of credentials, authority, and documentation that you would expect from something published in a reputable print resource (book, journal article, good newspaper)." Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks for your attention. I will be able to change my thinking on this, if you can show me just one wikipedia guideline that permits using personal website rants by unknown individuals that have no credibility or reliability.

Here are some of the quotes of Tentmaker and his friends on CARM, he is really, not one to receive links. The other person you linked is constantly kicked out of discussion forums, even a paltalk room last week to rambling nonsense. Here, Tentmaker quotes and friends, http://www.carm.org/uni/uniposts.htm The links given in this article would be removed from any highschool term paper as opinions not to be trusted as reliable.[[User:Tom S 48 21:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is Peggy Sue in agreement with Tom,

The links not following rules of wiki removed are as follows:

Gary A.- Tentmaker, unreliable source, as personal biased agenda former banned Universalist spammer to CARM forums, no credentials, no educational degrees as authority on Universalism. The link is a personal rant website, minus facts.

Troy Brooks, - Christianity forums removed, anti-calvinist, "anti Matt Slick," well known by many Christian forums users to be an internet troll, also frequently banned poster from CARM forums for spamming, personal attacks and insults. He is even banned on paltalk rooms for poor behavior and using personal attacks in religious persecution of other users. His link posted here was to a discussion board and removed.

David - Kathylon link removed, link to personal website, no credentials, qualifications, education in field, is simply another unknown person with a personal website.

All of the links removed were in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. Rules on references, and sources: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Peggy Sue

To Will C. You are WRONG there wasn't a consensus. Irmgard already posted two days ago, that links to discussion boards, aarm, is WRONG, and we agreed. You put back the nonsense discussion boards in your revert again. If you are going to keep putting back the nonsense links give a reason here. The discussion boards are against the rules, as agreed with the three of us. Either put the reason here for including discussion boards and blogs or STOP adding them. Peggy

Actually, I reverted back to user:Irmgard's last version. I think it is NPOV, and well-sourced. The "rules" that you refer to are wikipedia:guidelines. A more important "rule" at Wikipedia is editing by Wikipedia:Consensus. Cheers, -Willmcw Willmcw 01:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS, Please sign and date your contributions by typing four tildes (~), or just date them by typing five. Thanks -W.

No, Irmgard removed all the discussion board links in the list on the CARM page and has just started with helping on this article as requested. Now I have asked you several times, to read the rules and guidelines given above, and consensus to include discussion forums, blogs and websites goes against the rules of Wikipedia. You are truly the most difficult person that I have ever encountered. Read the guidelines given above, either in External links or as references you are NEVER, not to use, personal websites, blogs, discussion forums. Not in the EX links and not in the references. It is written clearly. You are wrong in your consensus idea. If that were true then any propaganda group could do an article and all vote to include their propaganda.02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC) fixed since not dated peggy ~

To Will: Here ya go, from the rules on consensus. "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing."

Told you we read the rules, discussion boards, blogs, personal websites NOT to be included. Propaganda sites, of which all the links to discussion boards and blogs here have been, are NEVER to be included. I ask you again for the guideline, rule, anything to prove that including discussion boards, partisan websites, and rants should be included in this article or any other. This article and the CARM article are being used by a "propaganda" group that is intending to slander the author Matt Slick. Again, show me the rule/guideline that states you MAY link discussion boards, blogs or personal websites. I am still waiting to see it. I said several times, if someone will show me that guideline, I will certainly agree to including the blogs and rant websites that are linked here. Peggy02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the official guideline. This article is in violation with

Editors that continue to add back in the links the personal websites and discussion blogs...

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Visiting a stranger's personal web page is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group."

Universalism links by Tentmaker should only be linked to Universalism groups. Atheism discussion boards are not to be used. Kathylon website is a personal website, should only be used for Atheism articles. Troy Brooks, Christianity Forums, is a link to a discussion board. Please group, let's stop with the links to propaganda personal websites. Peggy 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not binding, nor do they supersede any other guideline - such as the aforementioned consensus ideal. Editing is done through thoughtful discussion and rational debate - not unilateral and overbureaucratic insistence on supposed "guidelines." FCYTravis 07:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no aforementioned consensus "ideal." There were two people and one from the discussion boards that are up for deletion that are in agreement to include chatrooms and boards as links. The other two links are of personal websites, similar to the discussion boards being deleted. So, show me another article where contraversy is based on chatroom discussions please. Are you saying that wikipedia links chatrooms and discussion boards of less than 200 people in the articles by consensus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARM I wonder do you even know the situation here? A group of propagandist linking their discussion boards to a person they don't happen to like. This is about a member of the discussion boards insisting they be linked in a wikipedia article. The boards, again, are up for deletion as having no value or purpose to an encylopedia article.16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)5

Travis: PS, the revert, that you obviously never checked, has links to blogs and two are exactly the same link. Do you plan to fix it? Peggy16:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny that you'd call anyone a "propagandist" when every single one of your edits on Wikipedia have been attempts to remove all evidence of criticism of CARM and Matt Slick from their respective articles. This heavy-handed reliance on the "sites appropriate for original research" guidelines is just part of that campaign; you're not interested in voicing concern about the attribution of claims, and fixing that attribution. You're only interested in removing evidence of the claims altogether. --Hyperbole 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• You are wrong, we are attempting to include a NPOV, we have included Tentmaker, till we can get a ruling from an appeal as to it being a personal website, that aarm are discussion forums, and Troy brooks banned from every group on the internet but his own room you linked here with about 4 people posting. If you put a criticism here by a reliable source, referenced, we have no objection to that reliable source. But you continue to post blogs of banned posters from a discussion board. Now find a critic, published, with some authority in his field and no one will touch it. I have been looking and have not yet found one, because my time has been spent removing the rule violations from this article. Again, find a reputable scource and no one will object. Discussion boards and chat rooms are not encylopedia sources for criticism and you should know better. Would YOU rely on their opinions of anonymous chatroom users? Peggy Sue18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You've included Tentmaker until you can get it removed?? You're trying to bias the page, and you know it. We've gone over this before: the opinions of semi-anonymous message board users prove nothing other than that the opinions of semi-anonymous message board users exist. But that's all I've been writing into the article: that such opinions exist. And they do. There are literally hundreds of people who think Slick is dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, and is trying to "minister" by waging information war against other ideas and hiding them from the public view. Those people's POV demands to be included in any NPOV article; to exclude it would make the article POV in favor of Slick's supporters. That's you, Diane. And that's obviously all you're interested in doing here: making the article as POV as possible. --Hyperbole 19:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote of willmcw above August 19,

He agreed as well, the AARM site should only be used if articles on aarm. There are none, it is a chat room/discussion board. "2) In this matter, my opinion is that AARM is a notable source of criticism of CARM, but it is not a notable critic of Matt Slick. If there are specific articles by named authors on the AARM site then it might be appropritate to cite and link to those. There are plenty of identifiable critics of Slick, including John W. Ratcliff, that we don't have to rely on a webforum to document all of the major POVs on Slick. (And all of this vice versa for AARM and Ratcliff). " 3) Maybe the CARM article should expound further on the separation of that website from the discussion boards. I'd assumed that they were owned and operated by the same people, but there are different URLs. Cheers, -Willmcw" Quoted by will above..... Will remove the AARM boards as per agreement of editors,Peggy Sue 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Concerning aarm discussion boards, Willmcw, Tom S., Peggy Sue, Irmgard, Interested Party, all agree to removing the discussion boards as against the guidelines. Please do not add chatrooms and discussion boards to the links and article, Peggy Sue18:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

WillMCW said that we didn't need to cite to AARM as evidence of criticism of Slick. In other words, it shouldn't be used as a web reference for a sentence like "Slick's critics say he is dishonest in debates," because that's better-documented elsewhere (like Tentmaker.) WillMCW absolutely *did not* say that all mention of AARM should be excluded from the site, or that the external link should be removed. To do so would POV the article. You are trying to build a consensus among your own accounts and using misrepresentations of other Wikipedians. --Hyperbole 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see last RV with links is NPOV, both sides given there

It gives the Tentmaker link with Slick response. It details the controversy in a NPOV with links to both sides and the discussion boards of aarm removed, (as per agreement of the editors that discussion forums are not to be used] the Christianity forums should also be removed as they have only one person posting, Troy Brooks. But the article is fair, giving both sides with links to both sides. Hyperbole, you should have NO problem as the critics are there with responses as to Irmgards last edit and corrections but only the insignificant discussion forums removed. Peggy Sue 18:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the contentious links remain in the article as invisible comments. For example:
<!--*[http:\\www.foobarblog.com\foobar "Username" 'posting title', ''blog name'' {20 July 2005)] This link is commented out because blogs are unacceptable sources in this context. Please do not restore it to display.-->
This prevents a future editor inadvertently including that link (while hiding it from readers).—Theo (Talk) 18:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a forum sprung up specifically in response to Slick's misuse of moderation. That forum is critical to understanding criticism of Slick, as it is a gathering point for all critics of Slick. While I agree that citing to the forum in support of a proposition is not encyclopedic, it would be absolutely POV to exclude any mention of the event and to hide the forum from the public view. Because that's what the four accounts of Diane are attempting to do here: hide all criticism of Slick from public view, and pretend there's a "consensus" among themselves to do so. --Hyperbole 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on hyperbole, the aarm forum is like a thousand on the internet as stated by Irmgard. Whenever a group are removed for rule violations, they set up a board to attack the moderators of that forum. Do you think anyone is taking your nonsense seriously. You aren't fooling anyone here. You have disobeyed the wikipedia rules over and over and over again. You are obsessed with Matt Slick and CARM. You were told by the admin Irmgard that aarm is a joke, that it is up for deletion as ridiculous. Willmcw posts above that discussion boards are not credible sources. The four accounts you talk about are individual people as already proven, and hundreds more on CARM that would also delete this nonsense. No one is trying to hide the event, your boards are listed on the internet. Do you really think ANYBODY in the world cares about a group of atheists attacking a Christian website. Get real please! Nobody cares but 10 people such as yourself to slandering CARM moderators. You are truly crystal clear to your motives and intent. You see the wikipedians are voting aarm OUT as ridiculous, the guidelines tell you it is nonsense to list blogs and chatrooms here and your personal hatred for CARM and Matt Slick has driven you to complete and utter nonsense. Nobody wants the aarm board linked on this article but YOU and the atheist friends of YOURS. So the CARM friends of mine are here to remove it. The difference is, we are following the rules and you are writing your OWN to promote your hatred and propaganda.19:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And and for the record, no one is trying to hide the criticism of CARM and Matt Slick, as Matt lists the criticisms on CARM and responds to them. If he were trying to hide the criticism then why did he lists the criticisms, HERE http://www.carm.org/uni/uniposts.htm and HERE http://www.carm.org/list/aarm.htm There, the criticisms openly listed on CARM and addressed. You simply want to advertise your aarm boards and use CARM's article here as a tool to advertisme a wacko discussion group of liberals and atheists that hate CARM, big surprise. As if the world doesn't already know that. SIGNED PEGGY 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this user:Peggy Sue? Please sign your comments. -Willmcw 21:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • For the record there was no misuse of moderation, the atheists broke the rules, we can link that here as well. He is making a false statement of opinion and accusation which are not accurate. Already signed Peggy 19:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• • More documentation, Atheist rule violations causing the exist or suspensions, listed HERE in the debate: http://www.carm.org/atheism/1-matt_chad5bb.htm...SIGNED PEGGY00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To Willwmc List here a link to your talk. Hyperbole is lying in the history. Tom, Peggy, Interested Party, will give you our phone numbers to discuss the edits, and we told you they were slanders on the board and is why we were originally using only Interested Parties to sign. Now we ask that you remove the false accusations from the history of hyperbole, as we will give you our numbers and ask to speak with you on the phone in order to PROVE he is lying. 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Peggy

I am most certainly not lying, Diane, and I personally think calling me a liar skirts dangerously close to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm not denying that someone named Tom exists, but when a group of about nine combinations of user accounts and anonymous IPs start making exactly the same reverts with exactly the same writing style and arguments, worded exactly the same way, can you blame anyone for raising some eyebrows? Especially after Tom admitted on Talk:CARM that you "type for him"? I continue to believe that there is substantially exactly one person - you - behind this campaign of attempting to whitewash Slick's record. --Hyperbole 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As with any editor, you can go to my user page and then follow the "Discuss this page" link. -Willmcw 00:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • It shows archives but we posted to the last one. Please see the History on CARM page, where the accusations are made, yes my husband, sister and I live in NJ, and we have different IP addresses as well. I posted my email to you, I will send you our phone numbers in private email. I will send you the IP and telephone numbers. Please remove hyperbole personal attacks from the History on CARM page and from the DELETE vote on AARM, he is falsely accusing us and enough is enough. Why wouldn't three people be from NJ when we admit that we are? SIGNED PEGGY 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if everyone in your family is editing exclusively from their own user name - which is obviously not the case, since Tom even admits on Talk:CARM that Diane "types for him" - I think for the purposes of this article three family members who are otherwise not Wikipedians who are editing on the same subject with the same agenda should be treated as a single user, especially for purposes of the 3RR. That's just common sense. And that includes the anonymous IPs you've used after reaching your limit. --Hyperbole 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • You do not write the rules, or follow the rules. We have explained our accounts to the admins, now you are accusing others of being me. I think you are truly going beyond your authority here. You do not control this article, and we will continue to use the rules in order to stop your bashing of Matt Slick, and CARM and to pushing your agenda to advertising aarm through the use of wikipedia, it is wrong.Peggy Sue 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Diane, your writing style is unmistakable - and none of these mysterious Wikipedians who have sprung up exclusively to remove mentions of critics from CARM-related articles deviate from it one bit. No one here is stupid, and no one is fooled. --Hyperbole 01:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • The mysterious wikipedians are all separate individuals, as you have been informed and have the admins that do have access to IP's and names. I plan to find as many as I can to read the article, the discussions and to assist to reverting this article to a NPOV. You can throw out as many accusations as you please. You are not an admin here, you signed on to wikipedia as a new member, and as an atheist, to slander and attack a Christian website and it's founder Matt Slick. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see what you are doing. Now you are even removing the numbers of discussions board members of 6000 because it irks you to no end, that aarm has 20 users and CARM has thousands. You have no numbers for how many are active posters on CARM and now you give an opinion based on your own imagination. Are you that jealous of the CARM numbers? What kind of encyclopedia editor gives an opinion on discussion board numbers and how many he THINKS may be posting as regular. As my husband said to you, get a job and get a life, your hatred is consuming you and frankly it is frightening.Peggy Sue 16:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems you've decided to completely ignore Wikipedia:No personal attacks. A few points: 1. My religious beliefs are irrelevant to my ability to write an encyclopedic article. 2. The implication that six thousand people post to CARM is ludicrous. Most of those accounts are dead, duplicative, or deactivated, and you know it. CARM receives an average of significantly less than a thousand posts per day; that's not coming from users who each write a single post once a week. 3. It is not NPOV to exclude mentions of, and links to, critics of CARM. That is, rather, POV. 4. Your declared intention to get people to "assist in reverting" shows absolutely no respect for Wikipedia's philosophy of collaborative editing. You should not be here. --Hyperbole 17:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong as you have been from the beginning. This article is an embarrassment to an encylopedia. The person attacking and accusing everyone of being me, has been hyperbole. Any person attempting to direct this article as well as the CARM article to a "NPOV" have been attacked by you in one way or another. It is obvious to anyone reading that the article on Matt Slick and CARM are being written by partisan, biased persons, pushing propaganda that are not complying with the rules of wikipedia, and the controversy and critical views sections are completely OVER the top on both articles to being about slander and "CARM bashing" There is no NPOV encyclopedia quality to either article but a group of individuals seeking to attack an individual and ministry with nonsense from banned posters of a discussion forum. The CARM discussion boards are very active and still growing daily, and your attempts to distort the facts are simply more evidence to your BIAS and propaganda agenda. What any of that has to do with slamming Matt and CARM is again your personal issue as to worrying about how many posters are using CARM, whatever the number it certainly is not even in the same class as the atheists "hate" boards. There is an obvious POV in these articles when compared to any other Christian writer and ministry on wikipedia. As stated by wikipedia, it is this type of article, being used by propaganda groups that cause the encyclopedia the most criticism. Any true wikipedian editor would be embarrassed to see this type of thing going on with you and urbie and anyone reading the articles can see that it is NONSENSE and biasedPeggy Sue 03:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The "nonsense" that you consider so POV is simply a history of criticism of Matt Slick and CARM. It tells the story - in the most neutral way possible, arrived at by collaboration between Irmgard, an Evangelical Christian, Urbie, Will, Falphin, yourself, myself, and others - of how CARM banned Universalists and drove atheists and liberals from its boards, and how those groups continue to criticize CARM as corrupt and dishonest in its methods. Everyone else is content to edit this history to make sure it's told in the most neutral way possible; your own edits consist of trying to sweep the entire controversy under the rug. Trying to make factual information you don't like "go away" is simply not in keeping with Wikipedian philosophy. --Hyperbole 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Diane (a.k.a., Peggy Sue), I seriously recommend a switch to decaf. Urbie 06:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV notice

Okay, so Diane deleted the contoversy section and then stuck a NPOV notice in its place, claiming that the section has an anti-Christian slant. Obviously that's not the way to go about it - to remove the material you consider NPOV and to *also* put up a NPOV notice. Exactly the same thing happened on the CARM page. So, my question - is it appropriate to have those NPOV notices up there? Is there some kind of process - besides the normal course of editing - to determine when something is acceptably NPOV? --Hyperbole 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I knew you would put the garbage and nonsense back, even WITH the notices. Yes it is appropriate to have the notices, since there are two biased individuals that continue to control the edits, viewers must be informed that the wikipedian article is being challenged.Peggy Sue 03:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the POV notice, as long as it is understood to cover the material posted by the pro-carm faction, which seems to consist entirely of Diane posting under the guise of various user names.Urbie 06:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That is the point, Tom, Interested Party, Jennifer, are all different people. Again, more personal insults and false accusations. The three individuals all confirmed who they were to an admin with different IP's and user names. We posted initially as a group, and identified ourselves AS a group and we were told we had to get names, and found out GROUPS are permitted to edit per the rules, and yet the accusations continue. This is a propaganda article, written by anti-CARM individuals. It is obvious to anyone reading.68.44.255.244 14:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Any user who isn't actually having Diane "type for" him or her is editing at the direction of Diane. Therefore, every complaint about these articles can be traced back to Diane. The neutrality of the articles are disputed - by Diane. No one is fooled by the plethora of different user names that can technically be traced back to different physical human beings but that do not represent individual free-thinking editors. --Hyperbole 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, more false accusations. Now you are suggesting that Tom, Interested Party, Jennifer, are not thinking for themselves simply because they AGREE that this article is "POV." It is interesting that anyone not an atheist or atheists supporter is attacked and accused personally. Each person editing and returning the article to a "NPOV" removing the CARM bashing is aware of the situation, and edited the article accordingly. Your personal attacks and insults continue, each individual you attack is attacked simply because they don't agree with your biased, POV, propaganda article. Once again, your intentions and agenda are obvious....68.44.255.244 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I was only saying that the alleged group activity seems to be the work of an individual. I say this not simply because these various users share the same opinions, but for reasons cited by Hyperbole. In any case, despite your strong convictions on the subject, it really isn’t obvious to everyone that the article in question is “propaganda”. We must simply agree to disagree and find a way to include all points of view.Urbie 16:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the fact that Tom acknowledged that you type for him (and appears to have completely stopped making edits after Will warned you about the "one person, one account" policy). It's patently obvious that practically all the current NPOV criticism of the article comes from a single source. --Hyperbole 16:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tom stopped editing because he has been away on an orientation for his work, and BECAUSE we decided it is a waste of time to keep writing here. I am ONLY posting now because of the notice and the necessity to give reason as to WHY the article is disputed...... Again, the article is propaganda, POV, not wikipedia quality and should be viewed as such. How many times are you going to throw out the same accusation, over and over to my opinions as one person, when you know that it has been proven the other parties are indeed individuals. If not, they would have been removed....... All the parties involved agreed to speak with the admins on the phone, all the parties involved using different IPs and all the parties involved agreed that this article is POV. Yes I typed for Tom, he admitted it because his typing is SLOWER, why does that get posted here every time you talk. Tom didn't try to hide that fact. Tom edited to RV on his own, as did Jennifer and Interested party, not having the time to TYPE in talk each time...... The article is POV, if you look under category Religious Organizations, all obviously will have groups that disagree for various reasons, NONE have the same nonsense, biased, garbage that is posted in this article. Like I said, the two of you, with the nonsense placed in this article are embarrassing wikipedia, I do hope it was worth it, whatever cheap thrill you get out of attacking a person and ministry in an encyclopedia means that what Tom said is completely accurate. How sad for both of you.68.44.255.244 17:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• As noted in the criticisms of Wikipedia, this article fits nicely to the quote. "Likewise, Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." (McHenry, 2004).68.44.255.244 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the proper place to discuss why an NPOV tag is on the article, not in the article itself. -Willmcw 19:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Be nice

Please everybody, be nice. This talk page is here only to discuss how to make this a better article. I have removed two bickering sections that were not germane to our topic. This is not the appropriate location to talk about editors. If you wish to make a personal comment, then make it on their user page or by email. Also, I'd ask all the edtors to please address each other by their usernames here and not by other names, real or cyber. Better yet, please just talk about the article and don't even mention the other editors. Please also read Wikipedia:wikiquette. Thank you. -Willmcw 20:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• That is interesting. It is the EXACT complaint received about the CARM boards. We remove the comments on the person, and the editors posting the aarm boards here object to CARM doing exactly what you just did. I think I REST MY CASE. God is good!68.44.255.244 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:wikiquette. -Willmcw 00:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but remember as a moderator for CARM, we are being criticized in the contraversy for doing what you just did. The aarm posters here, object to personal insults being removed, they claim it interferes with "free speech"...by the way, you should read the wikipedia rules and guidelines on "Reliable" sources, and remove all the garbage links and websites from this article...that TOO is wikiquuette. Do you have a problem with insults of CARM and Matt Slick, if not why not? 68.44.255.244 01:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CARM's response to the Wikipedia edits

http://www.carm.org/slick/wikipedia.htm CARM Response to Wikipedia 68.44.255.244 03:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Controversy section is completely biased, based no on scholarship or accurately sourced information. The links, opinions are based on personal websites and blogs that are not permitted as sources per wikipedia guidelines. There are no facts sourced by an editorial opinion of the editor. Will edit and remove controversy links and if proper sources not given to prove the controversy actually exists per qualified sources, then the dispute will be removed. How on earth can an Encyl. slander an individual without proper documentation from reliable sources.Diane S 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Removed links to blogs, personal websites, discussion boards that are not permitted in wikipedia guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence Per guidelines, one should not use personal websites that cannot be verified as reliable, no discussion boards. To editors, please read guidelines.Wiki guidelines: "Beware false authority Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority. Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject." All of the sources used were personal blogs, not reputable, and certainly not published.Diane S 22:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You continue to confuse the presentation of a claim as fact with reporting that a claim exists. If the Wikipedia article nakedly said "Matt Slick is a shyster" and made a reference to Tentmaker to prove that "fact", you would have a completely valid point. But it doesn't; the Wikipedia article merely reports that criticism of Matt Slick exists. And, as we've gone over before, there is no intellectual problem in using critical sites as evidence to prove the existence of critical sites. They do that quite adequately. It is one of the most basic philosophies of Wikipedia that Wikipedia articles do not report groups' opinions as fact, but they *do* report the existence of groups with opinions. --Hyperbole 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of the distinction between sources and external links. The guideline cited above does not cover external links. The relevant guideline there is Wikipedia:external links.-Willmcw 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of addressing the issues presented by Matt in a tasteful manner, I think. Some were already addressed, and others I felt I could not sufficiently address. Thanks! OneGyT/T|C 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)