Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 2

message: "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).
:Diane, you've made it repeatedly clear, both here and elsewhere, that you don't respect Wikipedia, its guidelines, or its mission.  That really does raise the question of whether any of your edits here are made in good faith.  --Hyperbole 18:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, the idea of wikipedia is respectable as long as the users are honest, I don't respect several of the editors to this article or the CARM article as to writing in "good faith" to a NPOV. The bias is permitted and that is my objection to wikipedia. Anyone with any authority to keep the article NPOV is ignoring the articles and persons such as yourself and the other anti-CARM group are permitted to use the articles for propaganda. This simply reinforces the criticisms of wikipedia, that partisan, propaganda pushers are free to USE wikipedia, and that is exactly what has happened here.207.67.144.61 18:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The user who visits Wikipedia " 

message: The CARM site deserves an article due to its size and quality of content (if the content was completely undisputed, it would not be in any way remarkable) - not necessarily because of the forums, that's to be found in other places as well. Matt Slick should rather be merged into the CARM site, just being author of CARM is a bit short of Wikipedia criteria for a bio article. I'll suggest a merge.
On the other hand, the CARM-AARM war is not noteable - that's for the books of both sides. Almost all people who are not Evangelical Calvinists disagree with Evangelical Calvinists - already Martin Luther and John Wesley did, not only Catholics and Atheists of today. Any professed Evangelical Calvinist who is publishing on the web is catching fire in proportion to the number of visitors on his site. I've seen the same in Compuserve at the beginning of the nineties and the same stuff is going on in the usenet today (same arguments, different people). It is not noteable and it has nothing to do with Slick or CARM - the same sort of attacks including personal critique has happened before, is happening and will happen to any other who offers any worldview and sticks with it instead of gracefully giving in to people with different opinions. And in any forum with six thousand members there will be a percentage with not so good forum manners, and a small percentage which can get any philosopher or saint up in the boughs - for which he then is blamed. Nothing special either - Matt Slick is human (did you expect he wasn't?). What might be remarkable, as a psychological curiosity, is the fact that some people started years ago with AARM and are still so busy with fighting CARM that they do think that's what makes CARM noteworthy. Sure, everyone has the right to fight his private internet war for any cause as long as he likes to - but an encyclopedia is no place where to conduct such wars. 
As to anti-Christian bias - well, there is no reason to expect that critique of CARM comes mainly from conservative Christians, and the views of the critics are not neutral like CARM's views are not neutral. This is ok in an encyclopedia, if attributed. But most of it belongs to general critique of Evangelicalism or Calvinism and there's no reason to repeat it here - the article should be linked to those articles and there the critics have room to actually use arguments and not just say they are against it. --Irmgard 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed merger, albeit for different reasons. Matt Slick does not seem to have significant achievements outside of CARM, a situation similar to Jim Robinson, founder of the Free Republic. In the general scheme of things webforums belong on a shelf near the Pokemon characters. As a phenomenon they are interesting, individually they are hard to verify and questionably notable. Our currently-debated wikipedia:websites project is considering setting a notability threshold of 'Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members'. CARM has around 6,000, just above wiki-obscurity.  AARM is far lower. Collectively, the whole Slick/CARM//AARM/ topic is worth one article, with Ratcliff deserving a separate article because of his video game work. IMHO. -Willmcw 09:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
***To Willmcw: ONE MORE TIME Will, I have told you this many times and you either don't read or refuse to listen to me. CARM is not about discussion boards. CARM is an Apologetics ministry, with a Theology and Apologetics School, and articles on Christianity, with the boards a very small part of the ministry. Matt Slick is a published author and speaker, he has written thousands of articles for CARM. He is a Calvinist but doesn't write about Calvinism on CARM. CARM has over 26,000 members receiving news letters not 6000, but FIVE TIMES THAT, and 25,000 hits to the Home Page articles weekly. CARM is not a group with 6000 members, you keep referring to CARM as to the discussion boards which are the least popular of all of the ministry, it is not a blog, is not just discussion boards that are just part, a very small part of the ministry. The CARM discussion boards don't even deserve mentioning other than a sentence as to their importance to the article about CARM Apologetics Ministry and its features. Again, CARM is not, simply a discussion board, that is what aarm is about, not CARM. The most visited parts to CARM have NOTHING to do with the discussion boards. This article, and the Matt Slick article focus on the boards and should not, the ministry is an Apologetic Ministry, one of the top on the internet. We receive letters from Universities and Churches that the articles are used by students and pastors for teaching purposes. The aarm boards and J. Ratcliff are known to no one but a handful of people, that are just a discussion website and CARM is not. First of all, aarm just started less than a year ago, is not a website is simply a chatroom set up to mock the CARM ministry. The aarm boards have less than 200 people registered with about 20, if that regular members. AARM doesn't deserve mentioning anywhere, but the two people here focused on the CARM boards have left a WRONG impression, CARM is not a discussion board, why you keep saying that is bizarre. Have you even looked to see what it is. The boards, linked at the bottom of the website as a service, but again, CARM is not a discussion board, AARM is a discussion board just created. CARM is a Theology school, an apologetic Ministry. Posting this two places so that MAYBE you will see it. You don't even know what CARM is after all this time, it is NOT A DISCUSSION BOARD, why are you listening to these people from aarm, they are focused on their aarm boards trying to make CARM look like it is about the discussion boards, and the boards don't matter at all to the article on CARM. Sigh!Peggy Sue 16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points here. First of all, I dispute the 26,000 number. I seriously doubt that you could produce that, Diane. Secondly, you are wrong about the AARM numbers. I did a 15 minute scan this morning and came up with 70 or so active members within the last week. I'm sure you will want to apoligise to Hyperbole for calling him a liar about that. Thirdly, I have participated on CARM for 8 years. I was NEVER there for the articles. It was always the boards that attracted me. And finally, why shouldn't the Wiki admin listen to us? We are far more credible than you are. After all... you aren't even sure who you are... Peggy, erm Diane, I mean, Tom, oh wait its just an interested party... Kinda makes all your moaning about using real names.... sort of hypocritical doesn't it. kcs_hiker
If there is a merger of articles, the critical sections should remain as these are not general criticisms of Evangelicalism or Calvinism, but are criticisms specific to CARM and Slick.Urbie 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't doubt they are meant for CARM and Slick in this specific case, but the same arguments have been used before for any number of Calvinists, conservative Evangelicals resp. forum administrators - so they are not really specific. Regarding CARM: it's not only a forum site. The minimum Alexa count for websites has been given as 10'000, CARM has 45'000, not "the" biggest apologetic site, but one of the major ones. Irmgard 13:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: CARM is one man's online ministry - a place for one guy to espouse his views - with accompanying discussion boards.  The criticism of that man and his boards is, in my view, exactly as notable as the man and his boards themselves.  If the criticism of CARM is non-notable enough that it should be merged into some generic "Evangelical Christianity" page, then so should CARM itself.  --Hyperbole 18:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum wars not noteable 

message: Can anyone suggest reasons why Matt Slick should not be merged in CARM? If so, please would they do so here? —Theo  (Talk) 17:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only differences I can see in making the merge would be that 1) The CARM article would include a lot more information on the subject of Matt Slick, placing more emphasis on him in that article; and 2) Some of the duplicative "history of controversy" stuff on the two articles could be consolidated.  I see those changes as neutral-leaning-beneficial.  Without even addressing the subject of notability (as I still really don't have a great grip on what is and isn't notable), I'd cast a very weak vote in favor of the merge.  --Hyperbole 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Matt is at least as notable as Greg Koukl. People are generally shown leniency when it comes to notability. Anyway, I believe he fits under the Published author test of 5,000 or more known audience and I believe he also passes the google test considering he has direct hits on page 10(I didn't look past that).  Google Search, "Matt Slick" Also, CARM is not the same thing as Slick which is why Slick has his own seperate webpage outside of CARM.  Falphin 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Matt Slick into CARM

message: The article looks fine to me as currently written. It is informative about its topic, and POV neutral in my opinion. I do believe the link to the opposing site "AARM" should remain, provided it retains its current simple explanation that it is a link to an opposing POV external site. It is up to the user if he or she wishes to traverse that link. I chose not to traverse that link or any other link related or supporting. There may be continuing legalistic arguments about this issue, but that's the way I see it as a visitor who just chose to traverse the Community Portal link that said, "please have a look at this article that is under dispute" just to see how this sort of thing works, and then I undertook to read the article on its merits alone. Furthermore, it seems to me that this discussion seemed to be converging (although acrimoniously) towards a solution, then degraded back to "topic" argumentation rather than "article quality" argumentation, unfortunately making the "article" discussion forum, a "topic" discussion forum. If there are any real neutral people remaining with this topic, and it is within Wikipedia rules, I would recommend that all the previous argumentation be removed and a neutral arbitrator summarize any residual opposing views regarding the "article" and not the "topic" that the article discusses. The participants could then discuss whether they agree with the arbitrator's summary and then resume discussions on the merits of any proposed "article" changes, not the merits of the "topic", or the merits of the "participants" themselves. I hope this contribution is helpful towards resolving the dispute. Sincerely,
ThreePD 16:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes a lot of sense, what you say ;-) I made one little change: while Ratcliff might be sincerely convinced that there had been a systematic exclusion of atheists, CARM moderators seem to be as convinced that this has not been the case - in that case, it should not be described as a fact by either party. --Irmgard 18:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, comparing CARM with the KKK does not give the impression that the writer is unbiased, to put it mildly. --Irmgard 12:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Particularly if there is no documentary evidence that CARM has been systematically murdering atheists ;-). If there is no documented evidence that they have been, then there are still no facts on the matter, just one opinion saying they have been and another saying they haven't been. In that case, I would presume innocence. Furthermore, it appears to me so completely fallacious to cite as a comparison something that is so clearly emotionally charged. That retrospect matter was deemed to be fact by actual historical evidence; the "fact" was not determined by slandering one of the parties of the conflicting opinion at the time, no matter how evil that opposing party was/is. That just amounts to weakly delivered rhetoric no matter how you slice it. So on the credibility scale, the arguer did a disservice to his or her cause on the whole in my opinion. ThreePD 01:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see anywhere that AARM is used as a primary or secondary source about CARM.  Rather, a narrative summary of criticism of CARM is given - that, in keeping with NPOV spirit, tells what criticism exists rather than presenting that criticism as fact.  The suggestion that the word "AARM" should just be dropped into that narrative without any link that would explain to readers what AARM is runs absolutely contrary to encyclopedic standards.  So AARM is presented as a reference - not as a primary or secondary source on a specific claim.  Wikipedia policy is not being violated here.  --Hyperbole 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Reporting that the criticism exists, and pointing a reader to that criticism to evaluate for herself, is encyclopedic.  It does not hinge on whether the criticism consists of reporting facts, and the article makes no such claim that any criticism consists of the reporting of facts (most of it, obviously, is entirely the reporting of opinion; Ratcliff or anyone else's various credentials do not turn opinion into fact or purported fact).  However, it's undisputed fact that disputes with Universalists and Atheists led to the creation of material critical of CARM; I know you're not disputing that, Diane.  You were there.  And that fact is necessary to an encyclopedic understanding of CARM, which is why mention of those organizations are appropriate in this article.  --Hyperbole 22:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's as ridiculous as saying that the Wikipedia article on Scientology should be written entirely by Scientologists.  What you don't seem to understand is that the whole basis of Wikipedian policy on sources is to ensure that information in an article is factual.  Here, all sources are being used appropriately, and that can be seen in that you don't actually dispute the factual nature of anything in the article - you just keep ripping uncomplimentary sections of it out and using a weird interpretation of "primary source and secondary source" as your excuse.  --Hyperbole 02:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Wikipedia User Reads Article and Weighs In

message: "Wikipedia Rule: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence"Diane S 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are nine references given on this page.  Six of them are references to pages on CARM.  The other three are aros.net (to establish the proposition that Mormons have responded to CARM); tentmaker (to establish, in conjunction with a CARM site giving an opposing POV, that relations between Universalists and CARM broke down); and kathalon (to establish the proposition that there is theological opposition to CARM).  None of these references are bulletin boards or posts to USENET posts.  It's difficult to figure out what you're talking about.  --Hyperbole 04:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Will has already ruled that Tentmaker, Kathalon, etc. are valid references to prove their own existence.  We've been over this.  Tentmaker and Kathalon's specific claims about CARM are not presented at Wikipedia as fact; that would be using them as sources.  --Hyperbole 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules not followed in this article, starting with