Talk:Matt Slick/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Perspectives

message: ___ 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)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed middle of controversy section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Documentation needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted back to an appropriate NPOV 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All of your links have an agenda, conflict of interest, unreliable 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Clearly you are wrong for many reasons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tentmakers beliefs not a Reliable source for Slick article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Just for your information, we know 1000 people, that we  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is Peggy Sue in agreement with Tom,  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Here's the official guideline. This article is in violation with 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote of willmcw above August 19, 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please see last RV with links is NPOV, both sides given there 

message: http://www.carm.org/slick/wikipedia.htm CARM Response to Wikipedia
68.44.255.244 03:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CARM's response to the Wikipedia edits