Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 1

message: This is neither CARM's article nor their website, and as such, they do not have veto rights over the article or what gets linked from it.  RickK 21:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
*I agree, the question is should AARM be on here are not, their are plenty of external link choices for the opposing side the question I have is AARM the best or if there is a better example to show. It would also be easier to go with Carms wishes because their are plenty other choices. Falphin 21:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CARM's wishes on links

message: I copyedited the Perspective section. But the section probably should be redone and put in the Criticism section, we also need a section on CARM's moral and social viewpoints like the Answers in Genesis article.  Falphin 22:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedited

message: I found others, while AARM I suppose will stay here is others that we can decide which to keep on the page which to get rid of. Falphin 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Sites

message: Removed and edited added sections on atheist opinions of Slick, or CARM, Slick hate sites removed. In checking to other apologetic wiki entries there are no pages to atheist websites or to opposition desiring to attack the atheist position on any other religious apologetics websites. To inclued pages that are slandering by opinion is not with the spirit of NPOV. If you check Mormon apologetics or apologetics articles it is not noted to opposition websites being linked. I checked Atheists articles, 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, 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 "legal sanction." There may also be copyright violations, has anyone contacted Mr. Slick for permission to use his writings or name on Wiki? 
"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
:"In checking to other apologetic wiki entries there are no pages..." - that's their problem. There is nothing wrong with pointing to sites of opponents. You call the content of those sites "slander" and "libel" without giving a reason why you call it that. I suspect you just removed the links because you don't tolerate people who disagree with you. --Hob Gadling 11:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you read the Wiki policies as to links to inappropriate websites. Simply go to the links and check the content of the links. There is obscene language, slander, libel, personal insults and attacks that are not factual content but for "shock" value. It is stated shock sites are to be removed immediately. Please show me a link to another article on atheism where there is also a link to a christian website as an opposing view. This article on Matt Slick and CARM is not presenting a NPOV when it is noted to links to "shock sites." Perhaps I should appeal this to Wikipedia foundation as to the article being used for "propaganda" which is also not permitted per the wiki guidelines. Are you aware that the link to one of the discussion boards has pornographic content in one area of discussion? Have you checked the link content at all? Read the guideline below that the link should not violate the NPOV. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine
The link is a propaganda website to attack the person of Mr. Slick and his ministry with libel and slander. If you believe such content is permitted on Wiki, would you please list the guideline or policy here that states a person or group may use Wiki to promote their propaganda? 
:The link you are trying to remove is not a propagana site; it is a discussion forum populated by people who discuss CARM, many of whom are opposed to it.  It is the best place to find opposing perspectives on CARM, and thus, from a purely scholarly POV, it is perhaps one of the most useful links on the page.  Considering that CARM has so many critics, it would be using Wikipedia as a "propaganda machine" to create a page that didn't represent and/or link to their criticisms.  *That* would be a progagandizing, POV-biased page.  A description of criticisms of CARM and a link to sites generally opposing CARM is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's treatment of religious groups; see, for example, Scientology, which includes both a criticism section and links to sites critical of Scientology.  (This is despite the fact that Scientologists are notorious for filing lawsuits on the same grounds you're mentioning - "libel" and "copyright")  --Hyperbole 21:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WIKI stands for "What I Know Is."  People who post to CARM, have posted to CARM in the past, and/or post to discussion groups opposed to CARM, are better qualified to work on this page than others.  Mdavidn, Falphin (who is supportive of CARM), and I (as well as others working on this page) have all pledged to write a POV-neutral article.  What you want is apparently to use Wikipedia as a propaganda site such that the CARM page is nothing more than a brochure for your ministry.  That is not in line with Wikipedian philosophy.--Hyperbole 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links noted to violate Wikipedia Guidelines and policies 

message: Critics of CARM commonly complain about CARM's forums' rules, which they consider confusing, ambiguous, and subjective.  Another common complaint is that CARM's administration uses moderation to diminish opposition to Evangelical beliefs.
Where is the documentation for the 'common' complaints? Is there a source documented that indicates the complaints are common or are the complaints someones opinion? Who made that decision and where do we find the fact that these are common complaints. Or is this about the minority that have complained?Tom S 48 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspectives

message: I removed any and all discussion boards and blogs (also those of CARM) which ar not referred to in the text. The articles which are referred to in the article are listed under References - [Wikipedia:External links]. I also moved general Countercult sites to Christian countercult movement. Also I formatted the article more in Wikipedia style --Irmgard 13:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Peggy, it depends what you want to show with a reference, there are many cases where non-neutral references are not only permitted but required to show where a special opinion comes from. None of those links I entered would qualify to boost arguments in a theodicee article, but in this case they are examples of people who criticize CARM - contrasted to CARM's statements regarding these people. Of course, they are not unbiased but no one says they are - they illustrate a POV. On the other hand, I put the whole AARM article on a votes for deletion page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/AARM - reasons stated there. --Irmgard 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Here's the official guideline. This article is in violation with
Editors that continue to add back in the links to 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. The mormonism article is from a partisan group they should be included only on Mormon articles. The section on John Ratcliff and aarm should be deleted as it is a very small discussion board with thousands like it. CARM suspended posters will create boards and then they die out..... Please group, let's stop with the links to propaganda personal websites, and nonsense discussion boards as Irmgard states, very common....Peggy03:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misinterpreting the guideline.  Personal websites and blogs cannot be used to make a claim except about the authors thereof.  A claim about Matt Slick's critics is a claim about the authors of the personal websites and blogs.  Thus, they are both relevant and permissible under the guideline.  Incidentally, AARM has been steadily growing for a full year, and is in no danger of "dying out."  --Hyperbole 16:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said on the Talk:Matt Slick page, I have little doubt that three people actually exist in your household, but due to your distinctive writing style, I continue to believe that all or nearly all Wikipedia activity is Diane, Diane, and Diane.  Tom has even openly said that you "do at times type for him," and I believe that to mean "Have typed nearly everything on his behalf with the exception of that string of personal attacks he threw at me that one time."  Even if this weren't the case, I think that three family members, who are otherwise non-Wikipedians, who are logging in to edit the same articles with the same POV and the same agenda, should obviously be treated as one user, especially for the purpose of the 3RR.  Honestly, Di.  How would you feel if I made accounts for my wife and roommate and then "typed for them" so I could shirk off responsibility for things I'd said and consider myself entitled to nine reverts per article per day?  This is nothing short of appalling.  --Hyperbole 16:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The registration requirement status of AARM has no bearing on any of the facts in the article; more than 100 CARM posters left CARM for that board after accusations of unfair censorship.  Anyone wanting perspectives on CARM would do well to register a free account there and read what's being said.  On the other subject, there's a big difference between a few different AARM members being on Wikipedia and you posting from accounts of three members of your household.  The fact that Tom said your writing styles sound similar because you "type for him" speaks volumes; Interested Party, Peggy Sue, and Tom S are not three different Wikipedians.  They are Diane.  --Hyperbole 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, you continue to miss the point that writings by Slick's critics are perfect support of what Slick's critics think of him.  You simply can't get more authoritative.  So if making sure Wikipedia's cites were authoritative was really your concern - which it isn't - then, rest assured, you'd be able to sleep at night.  On the other subject, AARM has 190 accounts, and I would estimate that 50 of them are duplicate accounts, 10 came from somewhere other than CARM, and 10 are still active on CARM.  That leaves 120.  I did some math earlier and calculated that AARM's forums are 10-12% the size of CARM's, and growing.  I won't discuss this topic further on Wikipedia, because it's not the correct venue and it's badly off-topic.  --Hyperbole 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Diane, you know who URBILD is, and I know you know who URBILD is.  He posts completely independently of me, and I have encouraged him to revise and improve my own work wherever he thinks I've been less than accurate or clear.  That's because I respect the process of collaborative editing - and it's a far cry from your practice of creating accounts for everyone in your household and then "typing for them."  I have never made a single edit from any account other than Hyperbole, and I never will - nor have I made any anonymous edits since creating the account months ago.  --Hyperbole 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More research, posted on Matt Slick as well