Talk:John W. Ratcliff/Archive 1

message: This wikipedia page needed an update to Ratcliff webpage. Added the links and controversy section. There seems to be a blog as well not yet added.01:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Webpage

message: I want to comment on the inclusion of AARM on this entry instead of on its own--especially in light of the potential merger of the Matt Slick entry with the CARM entry. This suggests symmetry as if John W. Ratcliff is to the community of CARM critics as Matt Slick is to CARM and its supporters. This is NOT the case. Ratcliff should not be posed by implication as the most important critic of CARM. In fact, AARM does NOT purport to teach anything or to offer any programmatic criticisms of CARM. AARM is simply another forum. John W. Ratcliff is not Matt Slick's arch-enemy, as it were. So I am suggesting: 1) that AARM should be treated, on Wikipedia, as a community in its own right (for this is what it is), not as the work of John W. Ratcliff. He simply happens to be the excluded from CARM willing to pay for the AARM forum. AARM deserves its own entry if it is to be mentioned on Wikipedia. 2) Other records of the "great atheist purge", as it was called, should be found and cited, if any there be beyond the AARM threads returned by google. 
AARM, in other words, is a symptom of events surrounding CARM. This is its claim to fame, not its creation by John W. Ratcliff.  Disquieter 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with all of this.  AARM is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, though, but I do agree that AARM is a symptom of the events surrounding CARM rather than those surrounding Ratcliff.  --Yamla 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what makes something "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia entry. It seems to me that there are many, many entries on "insignificant" subjects. Should they all be deleted? AARM strikes me as at least as "notable" as, e.g., Kaitain, Dodds, Ohio, Linny The Guinea Pig, or any other obscure entry that results from clicking the "random article" link. This is the place to share "What I Know", is it not?  -Disquieter 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that's not the case.  See WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information").  Also, Wikipedia:Notability, though this is not always consistently applied.  --Yamla 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Inclusion of AARM on this page 

message: *Critics of John Ratcliff commonly hold worldviews as Evangelical Christians. Their most common complaints center around what they consider his misuse of moderation in his refusal to edit or remove alleged slander and libel comments from the AARM website forums. In order to quash opposing viewpoints he will use and permit others to use ad hominem attacks on his boards, resorting to profanity, his intentional misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints is noted to his admitting to being a troll on Christian discussion boards, his questionable tactics in debates to attacking the person rather than responding to the arguments presented realizing his being banned from Christian forums as a troll and his general conduct when talking to those who do not share his beliefs.
We need to have a source for this material. How do we know what Ratcliff critics think? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
There is a source given and documented with the Matt Slick response, he documents the critic view point and it is certainly linked. It must have been removed with your edit and it is now added back in. However, it would seem someone is removing the controversy and writing his own article? Or referring to the edit as "I"16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Matt Slick is the critic, then we should say "Matt Slick says...", not "Critics say...". Regarding the use of the word "I" in an edit summary, I don't know who that editor is in real life, but that comment was "I can't see why that quote is relevant to anything, also." That doesn't indicate that the article is about him. -Willmcw 18:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Number 207 is the "I" it is John Ratcliff, he stated, "I" in his edit that you can read in his edits and since the IP is from his hometown, and he is using the words "I" in his article edits, obviously the person John Ratcliff and the aarm posters are now editing his article. I would assume the person editing referring to himself as "I" and creator of aarm, is now using the wikipedia article for "self-promotion." Are you going to permit his edit of his article. Will you also permit others to EDIT pages written about them? By the way, Matt Slick is not the only critic. The CARM article represents CARM members, a board of directors and administrators that will absolutely agree to the article written to being from CARM Evangelicals and not just Matt Slick. Would you like the list of names of all the moderators, and admins that support the Matt Slick article?FanofJR 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now what you were referring to. You hadn't said which edits so I thought you meant Hyperbole, who used the word "I" in an edit summary. It'd help in the future if you could be more specific when talking about other users or their edits.  Regarding the criticisms of Ratcliff, what we need are written criticms that pre-date this editing cycle (i.e., not stuff that has been written just for this article). But getting back to the point, if the CARM administrators and board are the ones who are critics, then we should say that rahter than leaving the critics nameless.  Thanks, -Willmcw 23:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
To Willmcw: I gave a list of persons that are not representing CARM as volunteers, moderators, but actually documented on the website belonging to John. Here is a link, to a J Sloan, an apologist referring to the aarm forums, he is NOT a CARM representive or administrator, scroll to first post at the top, and there are many more persons that also criticize, if you want I can provide a list. So here is one. He states:  "A place not of free speech (that has little to do with it), but a place where you can verbally attack the character of those who you so happen to not like. 
That is all this place is. All the talk about the other boards and discussions that happen here are a farce; look at the stats. This board has the most posts, views, and threads. "''
http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2530&forum_id=6&jump_to=29520#p29520 FanofJR 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I generally refer to myself as "I". Don't you? -Willmcw 18:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the person is not to being using wikipedia for 'self-promotion' and editing the NPOV of others contributing. Are you suggesting that this article is going to be the work of John Ratcliff, ABOUT John Ratcliff?198.65.167.211 19:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The article should be a collaborative work between everyone with information and perspectives on John Ratcliff - including but not limited to John Ratcliff.  --Hyperbole 22:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced edits 

message: The link has been altered, but is still documented as to what it stated from Oct. - August 16. Now that John has altered the link message to remove his words posted there for almost a year, it is obvious that his words should be quoted as he originally stated, not the words he removes 10 months later, also with the note that he has a problem with "free speech" when that "free speech" is about him on wikipedia. Tell us, where was all the concern for 'context' and personal insults and editing when aarm posters are attacking CARM ministries on Wikipedia, John? Very clever John and hyperbole to change the words of your original, but all of this has been documented. You wanna talk about it? Go to the CARM articles and ask to have your discussion boards and the libel and slander of Matt Slick removed and then we can talk about what is honest and fair. He too has a wife that is sick, a family to support and the slander posted there will also effect his livlihood. Did you ever consider that before it was YOUR name being discussed? Now it isn't fun and games, but it is when you attack CARM ministries? You don't want anything here that might reflect negatively on your character or be misunderstood? Guess what Mr. Ratcliff, Matt Slick and people that you permit to be slandered everyday on your boards, and you thinking it is just fun and games, also have jobs, and churches, and ministries where they too want to be able to EDIT or remove the slander and libel, but you are all for FREE Speech when it is not your person being discussed. Unbelievable what is occuring here and it will be documented. This is a discussion board John, to discuss WHY you deleted any reference to aarm or your wordsFanofJR 21:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't change any text at AARM, nor did I suggest such a thing.  Contrary to what you may believe, my first loyalty is to Wikipedia and I am here to try to get this article as objective and NPOV as possible.  --Hyperbole 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Ratcliff changed his post on his website  

message: provided. I know of individuals that are NOT Evangelicals from CARM that do not support the aarm website. We can have the person post here that he is not member of CARM. I know of an atheist that stated to a room full of guests on paltalk that he does not support the aarm boards. To guess and write in the article what people are thinking or the motives is not a NPOV but simply someone's opinion. That is not permitted in the article unless there is documentation provided to the supportersFanofJR 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, Fan.  I went ahead and removed everything that was no more documented than the "supporters" section... --Hyperbole 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters comments removed, no documentation 

message: http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=164&posts=1&nr=266&page=2
This person criticizes aarm openly. He is an AARM member, not a CARM administrator.
http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=62&posts=1
Here is the documentation for a person that criticizes AARM openly, he is not a CARM administrator.
http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=204&posts=1
Here is another person from the aarm boards that is not a CARM administrator, openly criticizing the boards. Page to be reverted back to a NPOV article.
http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=148&posts=1
What do you know, you are an aarm poster as well? Is that why you continue to remove the proper edits from this board?
Tell ya what John, I have tried discussing this with individuals from your forums and then there are more libelous statements thrown our way in any attempts to work it out, threats of law suits, denial of words stated to us and harrassment in emails. I do not trust any person from the aarm web boards for obvious reason. The terms are that you remove all the libelous, slanderous post from your website per your moderators and then we can talk about discussing it. I am not representing CARM or any person but editing an article fairly as to what the posters from your forums have added to the CARM articles on wikipedia. The posters from your boards suggested that this is about "free speech." I told you what needs to be done. Have your editors clean up the Slick article and the attacks on his person and then we can work on this one.FanofJR 00:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You want documentation for the controversy 

message: that is continuously removing the NPOV in controversy. I read that last one with statements of critics just being from the carm group, can he prove that? Not a member of the carm group here and I most certainly agree that this Ratcliff guy is a bit over the top. Did you read his quotes? Looks to me like there is a friend to the family of Ratcliff doing the editing here. Or is Ratcliff still here?Tom S 48 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, Tom S 48 - you're not a member of the CARM group, you're just someone who dropped in at Wikipedia in order to contribute exclusively to CARM-related articles:  Your list of contributions can be seen here, and everything you've written is POV in favor of CARM.  You haven't made a single edit on any other subject.  Your transparent attempts to bias Wikipedia are not amusing.  --Hyperbole 04:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am a member of AARM.  And I have a POV on this subject.  And I intend to write a NPOV article.  That's what Wikipedia is about: people with POVs coming together to write a NPOV article.  I haven't misrepresented who I am and what my POV is; you have, acting as though you're some guy who just wandered in, came upon this article, and formulated a POV on it, when your contribution history clearly reveals that you're interested in nothing here other than writing POV-skewed articles on CARM.  If you think anything I've written is demonstrably false, please bring it to my attention; if it is in fact demonstrably false, I want it off these pages just as much as you do.  Not due to your veiled threats of suing for "libel," but because I have respect for the truth and for Wikipedia's goal of providing it.  --Hyperbole 18:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: We've been through this a million times.  CARM hasn't alleged a single specific instance of slander, libel, or falsehood on the CARM and Matt Slick Wikipedia articles.  Slick's conduct has led to numerous - dozens if not hundreds - of people who strongly oppose what he's doing, and the fact that such criticisms exist must be included in any Wikipedia article on the subject in order for the article to be NPOV.  Period.  --Hyperbole 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't edit your suggestion that I was "learning impaired"; that was Will, a Wikipedia administrator who apparently thought you had crossed the line.  There is, of course, a Wikipedia "article" about me, just as there is about every Wikipedia user including yourself: click the link in my signature, and you'll go right to it.  Edit away.  I can't even make sense of this last round of comments you've made, except that you want the Ratcliff article edited to reflect the fact that CARM has specified statements on AARM that they think amount to libel.  Fair enough: I'll make that edit if you haven't already.  --Hyperbole 20:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've already edited the Ratcliff article to remove the "unspecified" language, after learning that the quotes on the "CARM response" page are the ones CARM considers libelous.  I honestly can't see anything else in your latest dozen paragraphs or so that contain a suggestion on how to improve the articles, so I guess I'll just ignore them.  Cheers.  --Hyperbole 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone needs to monitor the editor 

message: and YOU sir are wrong concerning what you think. Do you think Matt Slick was so stupid as to not consult legalities before posting the list? Of course they are libelous. The quotes above are LIBEl, not think, not maybe, not could be, they ARE. No we will not take it up with them. The owner of the website as administrator is the publisher and is responsible to remove them.... Would you like the opinions of an attorney posted here? Who are YOU to determine what is or is not libel? The issue is were they documented, YES, the libelous statements are documented. You do not determine what is or is not cyberlibel, you do not decide by your opinion or what YOU think, as already stated above and you admitted to being BIASED. These quotes are libelous quotes, they will affect the reputation of a pastor, and you will REMOVE the edit saying they are 'undetermined' or I will. Your opinion is not what matters, is there documentation provided? Yes, and you need to REMOVE your statement. I want you to PROVE, prove these are not libelous statements before putting the words "undetermined" back into the article. There is NO free speech to posting lies about people, and if you are going to participate as a representative of Wikipedia, you had BETTER learn the copyright and cyberlibel laws. No you may NOT say what you please about a person using their real name on the internet. It is AGAINST THE LAW. Your opinion of free speech is not near reality.Tom S 48 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia:No legal threats. Do not post libellous material here, or you may be held responsible. -Willmcw 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is no libelous material posted here, or threats, but DOCUMENTATION of libel. Mr. Hyperbole has stated in the paragraph on Ratcliff that there are "unspecified" libelous statements. The SPECIFIED documentation has been posted here in a link, the words above are linked already in your article. As you have stated on another discussion concerning Matt Slick, wikipedia is not responsible. You said it more than once, shall I post it here. I read the discussions. Secondly, the statement that the libelous statements are 'unspecified' is the issue, they are. I don't see any libelous threats here. I see responses and documentation, of the aarm article that is linked. Tell ya what, I will just post the link here, and edit the documentation. Which I only QUOTED here because Hyperbole continues to edit with the false accusation that they are not specified. They are, and here is the link. Again, I will now remove the words above and again post the link, that you claim is ok.Tom S 48 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, so much verbiage for such a minor point.  Yes, you've specified statements that you think amount to libel.  No, I don't think those statements even resemble libel.  Yes, I've edited the Ratcliff article to reflect the fact that the quotes on the "CARM response to AARM" page are the ones CARM considers libelous.  I hadn't been aware that those were the quotes you thought were libelous, because to my eye, they don't resemble libelous speech.  --Hyperbole 20:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is that nothing you're saying here has anything to do with the quality of these Wikipedia articles.  Yes, if you continually break the 3RR rule, or make legal threats on Wikipedia talk pages, your IP will be blocked.  It's up to the administration of Wikipedia to decide whether that's the case.  Otherwise, discussions on whether libel exists on AARM are simply not appropriate for the talk page of a Wikipedia article; they're off-topic.  Take it to AARM if you want to complain about this; that's the appropriate forum.  --Hyperbole 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What we are stating here are responses to your false edits to the wikipedia article. This IS about the wikipedia article, and you erasing and deleting every other EDIT but your own. Yes, reverts have to be done because you and Ratcliff keep erasing everyone's work, that was documented, sourced, even to his own quotes. No one is threatening libel and no one needs to discuss libel if you would stop giving your POV opinions on the Ratcliff article and suggesting what you think is 'LIBEL." You said, unspecified slander/libel charges, and then argued they were not libel. I simply responded to your comments, your inaccurate editing, that the libel statements had been linked here for several days, and you suggest, you don't THINK they are libel and wonder why we have to explain in 1000 words to every edit. You simply REMOVE what you don't like, no documentation, no source, telling us it is heresay and what Ratcliff told you. You should not be an editor here. None of this "verbiage" would be necessary at all if you would stop putting your opinion in the article and ERASING everything from the other POV editors attempting to keep this neutral. Please do not insult my intelligence hyperbole and stop with the false statements do you not knowing why we are writing all the verbiage, it is because of YOU that we have to explain. I may be dumb, but not stupid. You don't want to read all the discussion on edits, then STOP erasing everyone elses edits. You post false statements in the article, the documentation was presented that you said didn't exist and now you ask why someone mentioned libel. TWILIGHT ZONETom S 48 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: A quick review of my work will reveal that I'm not merely reverting and erasing edits; I incorporate all your extremely POV edits to the greatest extent possible.  I am *actively avoiding* simple reverts; Wikipedia is a collaborative process.  To use your own example, when it was pointed out that CARM specifically considered those quotes libel, I immediately removed the "unspecified" language.  I absolutely do not want false information to appear on any page at Wikipedia.  --Hyperbole 07:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are not the judge and jury here,  

message: There is absolutely no reason in the world to have the religious beliefs of a game programmer on this article. It looks ridiculous. Where is the documentation and why is it here? JR started an Atheist discussion board that he blows off as not big deal, not a "Beliefs" discussion board or "Pantheist" discussion board and to list everything he believes is complete nonsense.Tom S 48 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratcliff's beliefs are relevant to his capacity as a religious discussion board moderator, not to his capacity as a game designer.  Isn't that obvious?  --Hyperbole 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously, Ratcliff's beliefs, and no one else's, are relevant to the John Ratcliff page.  Ratcliff's beliefs are not a point of contention (Ratcliff described them to me personally), so documenting them with a link hardly seems necessary.  AARM has a policy whereby people with moderation powers do not edit other people's posts without permission; in my view, that qualifies it as an unmoderated discussion board.  We could try to get more precise in the article and say that moderations are not made except when user-requested, but frankly I don't see any reason for that; it's wordy and adds no real value to the article.  But if you have a suggestion, let me know.  I'll see about touching up the trolling section.  --Hyperbole 21:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs. 

message: Removed unsourced beliefs of Ratcliff. Personal heresay is not going to make it. It only confirms your POV and your bias in this article. People can go to the forums to see his opinions, but there is no documentatin to his beliefs. This is what I keep trying to point out to the bias here. This is to be a factual article, with documentation. The moderators do remove post with or without request of the poster. I can post the documentation to Ratcliff saying he will remove slander.Tom S 48 21:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see you, or anyone, contesting Ratcliff's beliefs; since they're an uncontested description of his beliefs, there's no point in removing them.  Since the "trolling" stuff is obviously not controversial (as Ratcliffe apparently agrees with it), it is more appropriate to put it in the "beliefs" section than that "controversy" section, and I have moved it.  --Hyperbole 21:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The section about Ratcliff supporting trolling is supported by a link wherein Ratcliff says he supports trolling.  I don't see what possible further documentation could be needed for the proposition.  --Hyperbole 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Any writing by Ratcliff is a reliable source for what Ratcliff believes.  Besides, you put the link there in the first place.  --Hyperbole 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit on Beliefs till further documentation, this page too full 

message: "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 22:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are original research.  Secondary sources are analyses of original research.  Tertiary sources are those that compile and make sense of secondary sources.  None of these terms are truly descriptive of what's being done here.  These C/AARM articles do not contain anything identifiable as scholarly research.  Rather, boards are being linked to to prove the proposition that certain criticisms exist.  And such linkings shouldn't even be necessary since the existence of the criticisms is an obvious and apparent fact, the kind that does not demand authority in the first place. --Hyperbole 22:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia rules and guidelines that are being ignored by editors 

message: There seemed to be a lot of suggestions to merge on the VfD for AARM (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/AARM), so I've taken the liberty of merging that article with this one and redirecting it here. This isn't part of the VfD result, it's subject to further discussion and consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BOLD|Being bold]]

message: Webpages
Ratcliff is the founder and creator of the unmoderated discussion forum website, AARM, which stands for 'Atheist Apologetics Research Ministry.' 
* The aarm boards are moderated, many persons have the title moderator, and posts are moved, etc. by moderators. John himself moderates the forums. The above statement is not fact.
::I have no objection putting in a sentence to the effect that AARM has people with moderator powers and sometimes re-organizes posts into appropriate boards.  However, AARM does not delete any content except at the request of a user; that makes it comparatively unmoderated  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's not factual about the statement?  Several users were suspended - that's an agreed-upon fact - and Ratcliff interpreted that as systematic exclusion - that's a fact.  Nothing NPOV here.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet Ratcliff has expressed that preference, so whether or not moderators exist, this particular sentence is factual.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What you wrote is not incompatible with what appears in the article.  Unless you want a revision specifying that Ratcliff and the users consider the donators to be the owners of the forum.  I wouldn't object to that.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Slander" and "libel" are legal terms, and it has not been established that any criticism of CARM amounts to slander or libel.  It's already included in the article that CARM believes several AARM comments amount to slander and libel; I think that gets us to NPOV.  The above paragraph, at any rate, is factual.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: See below --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right here, we talk about Ratcliff's approval of the practice of Internet trolling and even include a link.  What are you asking for, then?  No information is being omitted here.  Do you just want an extra sentence in the criticism section that CARM disapproves of Ratcliff's approval of trolling?  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand whether you have a complaint with this section.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ratcliff's supports believe that CARM disapproves of unmoderated discussion in general.  That's the only proposition the article makes, and that proposition is proven via the forum link.  It's already represented in the article that CARM believes that Ratcliff allows libel on the boards.  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of the below content is disputed as "POV" not factual 

message: I can only see three reasonable edits that would address your complaints given here:
*1. Write a sentence specifying what's meant by "umoderated": how some AARM individuals have moderator powers and use them to organize the site, but that no content is deleted except at the request of the original posters.
*2. Specify that "ownership" of the boards is considered to be communal by the users themselves - that, obviously, there are third parties (such as the webhosting company and CARM) that consider Ratcliff to own the boards.
*3. Put a sentence in the criticism section to the effect that CARM disapproves of Ratcliff's support for Internet trolling.
To me, all three of these edits seem somewhat unnecessary and burdensome to the article, but I'd be willing to make them if others concur that it would make the article more NPOV.  So - can I get the opinion of someone other than the Dianes on whether these edits are worthwhile?  --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyperbole's suggestions on how to fix NPOV

message: NB: This edit conflicted with Hyperbole's edit of 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Peggy Sue's identification of POV material