Talk:The Way of the Master

message: I'll say here what I said with respect to a "controversy" mentioned in the seperate bio article about Ray:  What controversy is there for real? Outside of here, I've not heard of anything online in blogs, the news, or "old school" media about a "controversy" regarding the interview segments or theology like we have heard about, for example, Pat Robertson's antics. I don't want to offend anyone, but from where I'm sitting, this section is merely a way for someone to vent about something they don't like, and so I've deleted it yet again.  Anyone who does agree that there is a controversy, please feel free to respond.  Bring your hard evidence and links to articles about this "controversy," and leave your POVs at the door.
Not only that, but their "interviews" is not ambushing.  They have a book all about the behind the scenes aspects of the show, and they specifically say that nearly all people being interviewed have had the process and program described to them, and they sign a waiver agreeing to do the interview.  I don't have the book or quote readily available at the moment (I'll try to post the quote later), but it definitely does not indicate an "ambush," but instead a relatively in-depth process.
There have only been two instances that I can think of (and I've seen all the episodes) of people being filmed without their knowledge, and in both instances, their faces have been blurred out.  One was in their pilot episode when Comfort gives three guys money and leads into his presentation while Kirk watches and provides commentary from a distance.  The other was in "When Things Go Wrong," where Comfort tries to give tracts to a group of people in Canada, but accidentally walks into the middle of a drug deal (no, really). --MessengerAtLWU 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy is probably the wrong word to use, at least without evidence anyway, however having seen some episodes the basics are correct. If anyone disagrees with its phrasing feel free to edit it up to a NPOV, but blind reverting is not a good editing technique. I also added my own little paragraph, and played around with the position of the other paragraphs. I’ve never been any good at writing so let the editing begin! Gerard Foley 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Gerald, I've continued fixing as best I can.  Even though I agree with Kirk and Ray, I feel we should let the "Criticisms" section stand, with heavy watching for NPOV.  Thanks y'all! --MessengerAtLWU 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Controversy section does need to be cleaned a little. I don't really know how to accomplish that since I'm new here, but hopefully one of you guys can do it properly. Citations would help if someone can find them aswell. =/ Keero 23:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keero, the main problem is that this IP address who is making/adding to the Criticism section is conducting original research (OR), and it seems he/she does not want to sit down and talk on the talk pages.  The only article they've edited is this one and Fraggle Rock. /:-|  I'm in college and getting ready for exams next wee, so I don't have the time to sit back and work on it, but Homestarmy and I seem to be pretty much the only folks who regularly edit the articles on WOTM and Ray Comfort. --MessengerAtLWU 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: The above comment seems somewhat inconsistent.  It demands "hard evidence" for claims made in response to this article, yet it fails to do exactly that. This should be self-evident.
:Well if we're getting into semantics over this discussion, the WOTM people generally do both, they write gospel tracts and books :/. Im ordering a whole mess of them for my birthday :D. Homestarmy 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ingramac, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the claim that there's a controversy over WOTM, but instead the burden of proof is on the person who posted those statements, to cite articles and sites that prove their claim that there is in fact a controversy. P.S. Be sure to sign your name with --~~~~ when you post on talk pages. :-) --MessengerAtLWU 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, is this about the controversy thing or the definition of "discussion"? Homestarmy 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was about the controversy.  It'd be helpful if Ingramac got back here to discuss this with us. --MessengerAtLWU 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Question: "Evidence" 

message: Isn't that part of the show where they interview people on the street called "Reality Break"? Perhaps that paragraph can go under a level 3 heading. Gerard Foley 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it counts as a "filler" segment, so I'll mention it there. --MessengerAtLWU 13:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality Break  

message: Ehrm, i'm going to take a shot at NPOVing all of that and seeing if I can think about ways the Way of the Master episodes could arguably not fall under the categories of all those fallacies so there's more than one side, but the problem is both sides here are compleatly original reaserch. (The links illustrate concepts that Wikipedia itself already covers, but don't appear to specifically address the show) Any ideas? We could just call their radio show and ask them point blank about all the accusations :D Homestarmy 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get a minute this weekend, I'll see what I can do about NPOVing it.  We could also ask an administrator to take a look at it. --MessengerAtLWU 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the biggest issue is trying to get both sides, I don't think there's anything on any of the Way of the Master sites anywhere that responds to these exact objections. Of course, what the anon put in now might not even be a side since it seems to be OR.... Homestarmy 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, he was specific this time

message: Somebody seems to of hacked that website as I gather from the satirical content about the "Devil's beatitudes", and the www.wotmradio.com site seems either down or the hackers disabled it I supposed. I think that deserves an honorable mention.Homestarmy 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, that list probably IS something that one would hope we would hate, maybe nothing bad happened :/. Homestarmy 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's up now, so that's good. :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Err, maybe not

message: What's up with the Criticsm section being twice as long as the main content?  It seems way way out of proportion and is not what you see in bound enyclopedias.  How about reducing the criticism to the major bullets or linking to other pages that discuss a competing philosophy.
:The problem is it has no sources for any of it and as far as I can tell was just one anonymous editor putting in their own, personal criticisms, so im not entirely certain what can be done for it :/. Homestarmy 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "anonymous" editor included more material than was necessary in the criticism section, so I left the basic information, and purged the rest. The basic info being what specific criticisms have been made, definitions of some of the terms,  and an example for each one. The rest I believe to be superfluous.Jlujan69 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reasonable for the criticism section to be twice as long as the remainder of the content, iff this is how things are in the real world - if the criticism is far more notable, in the real world, than the positive features (i.e. if WOTM is notable for being criticised). Clinkophonist 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just it, as far as I know, most of this section is nothing more than a single anon's critique of all this, hardly notable :/. Homestarmy 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticm section WAY to long 

message: In that section, I stated what could be the source of his summary of evolution. It was a magazine I read years ago and another article I read recently confirmed that this theory was still being explored. It speculates that in the beginning there really was a state of nothingness. Of course, the article went on to say what scientists mean by "nothingness". I'll try to find the link and post it if possible.Jlujan69 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added information in criticism section 

message: When I watched Left Behind II: Tribulation Force, I did so for the purpose of laughing my ass off with a couple of friends. And, sure enough, I wasn't disappointed, when Cameron (excuse me, I mean Cameron's "charakter") actually starts confronting another character with his painfully repetitive "Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?" routine. That seemed to me to be a remarkable (albeit hilarious) creak of the charakter, and I believe that it deserves some mention here. After all, the direct inclusion in a (somewhat) major filme gives the principle somewhat more of a fame. Maybe somebody who isn't as biased as me will want to write that in somewhere. That's it, I'll leave now. Tihi. — Mütze 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could cite it at the bottom and add in a line about it I suppose. But, to 70.162.43.130, the entire point is that nobody can get to heaven alone because the standard is too high and that that's why everyone needs Jesus. It would be pretty silly to expect people to want to be saved if nobody really needed to be saved, Jesus certainly wouldn't of needed to die for us then, and in fact, if humans had the ability to be saved by successfully adhering to perfect standards, Jesus wouldn't even technically of needed to exist. Homestarmy 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah technically he didnt exist .. so well done on that one (I mean the biblical character - the son of god etc) 123.255.23.61 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit mention of WDJD in [[Left Behind II: Tribulation Force|second Left Behind movie]] 

message: The following paragraph: Cameron and Comfort use what some describe as flawed or misleading arguments to prove the existence of God, or their discussions with the general public may be more colloquial than strictly scientific ... some say that this does not technically qualify as actual proof of a painter or a builder, following David Hume, who pointed out that one only knows from experience that paintings have painters and buildings have builders, but not that universes have creators. 
reads as original research/criticism by the author. At least one citation should be given here, especially if the encyclopedist is audacious enough to point back to Hume, or refer to the hosts as "misleading" per WP:LIVING. I'm going to condense it. Leon 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from design

message: From what I can see, the criticisms section is nearly devoid of actual criticisms. 
*The first paragraphs aren't criticism so much as disagreement over an abstract theological topic. 
*Martin Bashir's blurbs about "deliberately confrontational" and "unafraid to offend other faiths" are only critisims if you take them as such. 
**"Why should anyone believe an itinerant evangelist without any qualifications, and a former child actor without any qualifications?" seems to be posing a question for them to rebut rather than actually making an accusation.  
Bantosh 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Are The Criticisms?

message: Maybe the criticism section should be removed. While many of Kirk and Ray's ideas certainly do seem like various groups would criticize them if they had the inkling to do it, with no references, that makes me wonder if any notable (I.E. no blogspot.com entries) people and/or groups have actually decided to criticize them on the things mentioned. Homestarmy 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You know, if there is no documented criticism....

message: This topic seems to have spawned a vast array of unencyclopaedic (advertising blurb, fansite-like trivia and/or embedded lists) and poorly cited (almost all citations are to websites associated with this ministry) articles. I am therefore suggesting that they all be merged here, compressed down to what is reliably sourced and encyclopaedic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only article that I think should be merged or even deleted is the article about "The Way of the Master Training Courses". All the other articles that have been proposed to be merged into this one should be instead improved upon and expanded to meet the so-called "notibility" requirements. SSobregon88 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing "so-called" about the notability requirements -- they are wikipedia policy. As far as I can see none of the topics of these satellite articles "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- so none of them have a presumption of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these articles were created quite some time ago, in the hopes that they would incur enough content for there to be enough material for a Way of the Master series of articles. I wasn't so sure of it myself, but I gotta say, at the moment, most of the articles are not very high in quality. If the material in each was used in this article, perhaps it might be more comphrehensive, and then at least there would be one relatively good quality article. However, the Great News Network is not an official part of The Way of the Master, but of course, that discussion is on the GNN talk page. Homestarmy 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GNN is an offshoot of this movement, and the only thing it is even purported to be notable for is for the confiscation of a WOTM product from them. So, lacking a better home, or somebody willing to go to the effort of an AfD, here would appear to be the best option. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Having merged these articles, and removed the most blatantly unencyclopaedic bits while doing so, I now notice that the resultant article is still a mess. Very little is cited, and what is cited is almost always cited to WOTM itself (and its satellites). The tone is also more that of a fansite than an objective article -- but its difficult to improve this given the lack of objective sources. There's therefore a good chance that large amounts of the article (and possibly whole sections) will end up disappearing as the lack of appropriate tone or reliable third party citations makes them not worth saving. HrafnTalkStalk 15:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-merger

message: This article lacks encyclopediac tone. I think the main problem is it is written for a American style evangelical Christian audience, rather than the general audience Wikipedia requires. Case is point is all time spent outlining the Biblical support. Not all Christian churches place this sort of emphasis on Biblical support for theological positions. I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to get 3rd party descriptions of the organisation. As it is it sounds like most of the article was written by people within the organisation/movement/church or whatever you want to call it. Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but good luck finding any -- even if a few objective descriptions do exist, they will tend to be vastly outnumbered by the number from within the evangelical movement (or at least that's been my experience to date), and so be difficult to track down. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article tone improvements

message: The claimed awards for WOTM seem to be contradicted by the NRB 2006 Media Award Winners, which makes no mention of them. I would suggest that this statement in the lead be removed until a more reliable source can be found for it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says they won it in 2005. Would you object to the text stating this (rather than 2004-2006), or do you consider the source dubious. I am reluctant to remove the text wholesale, because it contains one of the few cites that this article has! Ashmoo (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources cited makes the claim for 2006: , which is directly contradicted by the NRB page. The cites are only to one of WOTM/LW own websites, so not exactly high quality. HrafnTalkStalk 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It website says they won the 2006 award two years running! They must have had a time machine. I think the contradiction may have something to do with 'TV Commitee awards' and 'Media Awards'. But it's not up to you and I to work out what the original editor meant. Chop it and let them explain, if they ever come back. Ashmoo (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Tried to find replacements for the citations to www.ttwministries.com (now defunct, and not waybackable) -- the closest I could come up with is this -- which claims to be "Author:  Unknown", in spite of the fact that the site has a category for "Todd Friel". Given that it's a blog & doesn't explicitly credit Friel as its author, I don't think it's sufficiently reliable. HrafnTalkStalk 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.ttwministries.com 

message: I am now also proposing the merger into this article of these two articles:
*The Way of the Master (television show): the only references cited to this list-ridden article are for the awards I discussed above. I am proposing retaining the list of episodes.
*The Way of the Master Radio Show: completed uncited & trivia-ridden. I'm not proposing retaining any of it.
HrafnTalkStalk 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As it stands now, those 2 articles are barely notable and are 99% trivia. Ashmoo 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merger proposal 

message: I dispute the neutrality of the word "ministry" to describe an organization or movement.  Better more neutral words exist.  Furthermore this very talk page talks of a large "Controversy" section while there is no longer any distinct listing of opposing opinion on a highly flammable set of opinions.  At the very least there should be a summary of leading theologians that dis/agree.  Currently the tone is extremely supportive of the group while it is clear there is another side of the story from some of the passing comments.  --Lord Matt (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ministry" is the WOTM's self-description of their organisation. I have seen no hard numbers, but it gives every impression of being too small to be considered a "movement". There hasn't been a 'controversy' section in two years as far as I can tell, and the section that existed was entirely unsourced, so was legitimately removed per WP:V. If you can find WP:V & WP:RS information on a controversy, you are welcome to add it. I cannot imagine a serious theologian bothering with such a lowbrow outfit as these guys, but if you can find some, then by all means add them. The tone is "supportive" because nobody other than the organisation itself and its supporters seem to bother with it -- which is why its been flagged for notability. I don't really mind the extra NPOV tag, but given the article's other problems (as per existing tags) it seems a tad superfluous. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV - Words 

message: I would point out that the three citations for this have coverage of WotM are as follows:
#"He said his clients didn't design or print the tracts but purchased them from a Southern California ministry. Living Waters Ministry sells the million-dollar bill tracts – 100 for $5."
#No mention of WotM.
#A video from 'Great News Network' that is only a WP:RS for their own views, and is not independent of the subject (I therefore didn't bother downloading & transcribing it to see if it mentions WotM).
None of these counts as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Million Dollar Bill Seizure & [[WP:NOTE|notability]] of WotM 

message: I plan on adding some information gathered from the various news stories ABC News has indirectly done on Way of the Master (here, here, and here) as well as anything else I can dig up to help establish WP:Notability.  I believe these to be WP:RS, although I could probably use some guidance regarding the fact that these might have too much focus on Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort rather than the organization itself. 10outof10die (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indirect coverage is generally not "significant coverage" (per WP:NOTE, covered in WP:ORG as "depth of coverage"). These stories appear to mention WotM only in passing, in discussing Cameron, Comfort (who already have their own articles) and other topics unrelated to WotM. They did not appear to have anything to say about the organisation, other than that it exists and that Cameron & Comfort are associated with it (which the article already establishes). HrafnTalkStalk 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a feeling that was the case as well.  I will focus more on those articles then. Thanks. 10outof10die (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC News and [[WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)]] 

message: I am really wanting to remove the  from the article. I read it all through, and it all seems neutral. I'll fix anything mentioned, but I do want to remove the tag. Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: *WoTM/LWP put out this press release.
*A small and obscure UK religious magazine (for which there is no reason to assume any particular reliability) makes a brief summary of it for their website.
This is not even close to being WP:RS. If AE wants to make an issue out of this, we can take it to WP:RS/N. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the second is a published, (in my opinion) reliable source that should be discussed. The first one I am not very sure about, as the "author" is an affiliate of WOTM. TheAE talk/sign 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AE: your unsubstantiated "opinion" has no value whatsoever. In what way does Inspire meet WP:RS? Mere "publication" by an obscure magazine, that is only sold via direct subscription to the publisher, is not a measure of reliability, especially when there is no indication that this publication is on anything other than their website. This is particularly egregious when you reference the grandious claim that "The 'Million Dollar Bill' tract has become a well-known tract" to this flimsy source. You can either remove this material yourself, or I'm taking it to WP:RS/N (where it doesn't stand a WP:SNOW-ball's chance in hell). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I don't understand half of the words you used (which may be a good thing). Secondly, by "in my opinion," I meant that I believe it to be reliable (and you disagree, so outside opinion is needed), and it isn't an issue of being published. You may add it to WP:RS/N, and let other users comment. I may be wrong as to its reliability, but I think it would be even more wrong not to discuss this first (before reverting, Hrafn). TheAE talk/sign 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AE: what you (or I) "believe" matters no more than what your unsubstantiated opinion is. It is policy that matters. And WP:RS gives no indication that Inspire should be considered a reliable source. You introduced blatantly unreliably-sourced material. I reverted. That is normal practice. You re-added it without first discussing it on talk, which is arguably WP:EDITWARing. You are wrong on reliability, you are wrong on wiki-etiquette. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If you could just say, "It doesn't matter that you think, policy says it isn't reliable" to every disputable source, there would be no reason for WP:RS/N. Some sources/websites need discussion, like Inspire, which it why the noticeboard exists. I double-checked WP:RS, and I didn't see it say, "Inspire isn't a reliable source", so we must be looking at different pages. About WP:EDITWARing, I didn't edit war, at all. You did a full revert, and I did not just warringly undo your revert. I looked at the material again, reconsidered one of the sources, and added only the other one in the article. I didn't war. You said, "You are wrong on reliability, you are wrong on wiki-etiquette." On reliability, I am still learning, I admit, as every user should be. But on wiki-etiquette, I fully disagree. Look through my talk page, I'm not the editor who constantly is accused of being incivil, and then removes it. TheAE talk/sign 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hrafn, I haven't once said "x-policy says it is reliable." I only said that it is a published magazine that may be reliable, and therefore should be discussed at WP:RS/N. that is all. I cannot believe that you reverted me again without a single comment from WP:RS/N, right after you scolded me for doing it? I will not undo it, as I am bound by policy not to. TheAE talk/sign 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR puffery is not a reliable source 

message: :claiming that they could prove the existence of God scientifically without using the Bible
The most important thing a neutral reader like me would like to know is: did they? That of course means: who was the perceived winner of the argument? --82.83.49.84 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result missing