Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 1

Initial notes

I removed the atheist links because of 1.non-notable 2. Request from CARM. Falphin 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. CARM is directly responsible for the offshoot that became AARM, so it is notable. Mdavidn 17:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have after reviewing the site. In response I will argue that it is not CARMS fault for AARM. The cause was atheists that disagreed with CARMS policies. So the cause is the atheists not CARM. Therfore it is not notable and it is not wikipedias responsibility to make something notable. Falphin 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree. The reasons for AARM's creation are somewhat complex, and I do not wish to be drawn into that discussion. However, it should be noted that these "atheists" were happy at the CARM forums for many years before the sudden formation of AARM, so I do not see how it could be argued that they are exclusively to blame. It should also be noted that the participants at AARM are not all atheist. I still believe the link is notable. Mdavidn 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand I doubt a full agreement can be made on the topic. But I do want to thank you for paying attention to the article. Falphin 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

external link. Yes, it will be removed as nonsense, inappropriate.

User:Falphin has called the AARM site "relevant to CARM" in an edit summary elsewhere.[1] If it was founded in reaction to CARM and has a similar mission, and if it has additional informaiton that would be of use to readers, then it should be included. Being "notable" has noting to do with it. And the wishes of CARM have nothing to do with it either. How do we know their wishes anyway? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see, the biggest problem is not that the links are parody but they include offensive material against Carm. Thats why it was such a big deal their. I won't revert instead I will wait for you answer. Falphin 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found the request from CARM that you mentioned above. The person who made the request does not seem to have an unbiased opinion on the matter and may have a conflict of interest, since she did play a significant role in the formation of AARM. She is too quick to characterize the AARM perspective as "nonsense slander," "lies," "dishonest," and "seriously disturbed." Honoring her request to suppress a certain POV on this article does not seem in the spirit of Wikipedia. Mdavidn 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What kind of offensive material? We often include websites that are critical of the subject of articles. If AARM is posting material critical of CARM that is all the more reason to include them here. Also, if one of the editors is an active participant in CARM, then it is important to remember that we all need to stay NPOV and focus on the quality of the article. While we're here, we're editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Its more than that. I'll ask for specific expamples if you want. While I don't completely disagree with the links it has made them very upset, they intend to write a formal complaint to wikipedia.Falphin 19:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes please do. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked and am waiting for a reply(I would give them a couple days.) I will also do more of my own independent research into it which I have already started. Falphin 20:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you'll agree to it, can we leave the links off until I get the information. It would be beneficial it getting info from Dianne. Falphin 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would we leave the links off? BTW, who are the "they" that you refer to as being offended? Are these forum participants or are we talking about Slick himself? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I need time to get the info, its not helping the cause. Please. Also, I do have to disagree with the Slick lies one, right now their are more anti-sites than pro and that makes it a POV.

I searched around and the only "pro" sites I could find were ones which merely listed CARM among other sites, perhaps with a comment like "highly recommended." I'm not sure what "cause" you are talking about helping. The cause of having a comprehensive, NPOV article is helped by having more information. Note that I haven't added any of the assertions from those websites to the article, an article which is now 100% positive to CARM. Once we've added some of the criticisms of CARM then it'll be more NPOV. But I'll wait for that until we've heard back from the "them." Thanks, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you interested me, Mdavin, and maybe Hyberbole are going to work with the Matt Slick and his controversy section. You can join us if you like. On my talk page I have made a page where we can freely edit before posting. And my cause, is understanding more about why the site offends them and then I can no what to do with the link.But I'm afraid if they are too upset I won't receive the help I need. Falphin 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, we've only been talking about AARM, yet another site, www.infidels.org, is also being removed. What's the problem with that one? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response on that .Falphin 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You were deleting it without knowing why? Ok, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

They consider it an offensive site, but I'm an not familiar. You should look at the discussion that I have gone through at CaRM. Falphin 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No thanks, their forum software crashes my browser. Anyway, forums are generally not considered suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. All we are trying to figure out is if there is some legitimate reason not to include these links. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• My links suck but they are neccesary. Falphin 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Redirect vandalism Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images."

According to the directions and guidelines stated above, linking to articles or talk pages that are "offensive" is considered Vandalism. The links to the discussion boards listed to AARM and Atheists websites are extremely offensive in language and content. CARM does not want to be associated with such offensive links, it is vandalism.

That policy refers to redirecting the article or images to offensive sites. That is not a reference to external links. Two separate issues. -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a start from my research

[2] [3] [4] refers about this page [5] Falphin 21:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to guidelines

There should be no personal attacks in the articles OR discussions

Also stated in guidelines that there should not be advertising. The link posted is for advertising purposes to promote the website that does not in fact have anything at all to do with the CARM website. The discussion boards is attacking individuals with offensive language. It links to a discussion board as an advertisment FOR the discussion board that is offensive, and personally attacking.

"There are two types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service,...... or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual...... Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however.

• I don't think the Matt Slick lies thing should of been their either, now if AARM ends up being removed(don't know if it will) the external links will be rightfully balanced. I will also add the controversy section later with help. Falphin 21:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The "slick Lies" link is not wikispam. Also, the personal attacks policy refers to attacks on Wikipedia, not on other site. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, but I don't consider it ani nformative link like the other links. Falphin 21:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think four opposing links is good, but it would be nice to get rid of AARM and add a differnt one. Falphin 21:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer this one [6] over Slick lies. Falphin 21:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heres another [7] Main page [8]

It's not either/or. We can add those too. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Slick Lies", Slick links to it himself from this page [9], and provides a rebuttal. I think we should link to both the article and the rebuttal. It's hard to see how we shouldn't link to the site if Slick does. -Willmcw 23:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I had one more reaosn about he AARM if you can't go to the discussion forum where I responded to Hyperbole then I basically give you the post. The person began by cussing out Merlin(an moderator on that site), then Dianne, and Slick, then the conservative Coadie, and then me. Thats my personal problem with the site, not the idea of a parody link but posts like that one. Falphin 02:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia links to Google's USENET archive and to Slashdot. It seems, then, that it is not Wikipedia's policy to exclude links to forums with useful signal just because they contain offensive noise. AARM contains some ugly posts, but the signal-to-noise ratio is not that bad, and it is almost unquestionably the best source on the Internet for CARM-related discussions that are banned at CARM, including but not limited to criticism of CARM. --Hyperbole 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CARM's wishes on links

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)

He said above that forums are not usually used in Wiki articles...well AARM is only a discussion forum, it is not a website with articles but just discussion boards, so that is the answer already, they don't belong here....AARM has no content or webpages other than discussion boards..

Will said this....forums not sources....AARM is a forum

"No thanks, their forum software crashes my browser. Anyway, forums are generally not considered suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. All we are trying to figure out is if there is some legitimate reason not to include these links. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)"

....this should be resolved since the links are atheists forums, not sources...

What I meant is that forums aren't usually used as sources or references for facts in Wikipedia articles, not that forums aren't linked to from Wikipedia articles. The only reason I can see to remove it is that apparently some forum users there have said impolite things about CARM and its forum administrator. Is that the only reason? -Willmcw 22:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

.....No, that is not the only reason. According to Wiki, the site linked should be "proper, tasteful." The information is about CARM, to offer discussion boards of atheists in AARM that are foul in langague and content is certainly not adding 'useful, tasteful' material to the content of the article. Whether the person named or not, the material in the link is not tasteful, and certainly not appropriate for all audiences to read....

"In Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link. 1. Is it accessible? 2. Is it proper? (useful, tasteful, etc?) 3. Is it entered correctly? In general, external links should be accessible by the widest audience possible."

I hope you'll follow the guideline calling on editors to sign their talk page entries. It is hard to follow the discussion otherwise. It would also help if you'd provide the links to the pages you are quoting from. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:48, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the administration of CARM wants the link to AARM removed specifically because AARM is critical of CARM. However, the official reason the administration of CARM will be giving for the removal of the link is that AARM contains language that they do not consider appropriate for children to read. AARM is an unmoderated forum, and some posters use profanities, obscenities, and colorful language in their descriptions of CARM administrators and policies. That said, AARM also probably contains the most uncensored content relating to CARM on the Internet, and is thus a highly relevant link. Its exclusion, IMHO, biases the article toward a pro-CARM POV. --Hyperbole 01:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole my biggest problem with that site is threads like these

[10] look at the very bottom. Falphin 02:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, then I think we're in agreement that 1) AARM contains a great deal of information about CARM, and is a forum for perspectives that are banned on CARM; and 2) AARM contains several posters who use a great deal of foul language.

I don't know whether it's Wikipedia's policy to exclude links to forums that contain foul language - but given that Wikipedia links to both the Google USENET archive and to Slashdot, that doesn't seem to be the case. And you'll find far worse on both those forums than on AARM. So, right now, I am of the opinion that the only reason the AARM link is being removed is that Matt and Diane would rather people not read AARM - and that is clearly not a legitimate reason. --Hyperbole 03:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

....By the way, Hyperbole, what is your name, your real name? If you have the idea that you know what Matt and Diane think, and are aware of what is or is not legitimate, maybe you could tell us WHO you are and why you claim some authority to know what Matt and Diane are thinking? AARM is not the best source, the people don't even have the guts to use their real names on AARM. Matt and Diane are real people, using their real names, with real friends, family, that will read this article linked to a group of user nick names slandering REAL people. The people on AARM do not indentify who or what they are. CARM has posted real, full names on the Home Pages, of the administrators. AARM linked is a group of 'KKK' type individuals, hiding behind user names as the 'hoods' they hide under so they can THEN slander real people with REAL Christian ministries. AARM should not be considered a 'source' of truth on anything, when the individuals involved will not even sign their real names to their slander on AARM but attack others with criticism that are using real names and have the courage to defend what they believe using REAL names. If any one of the persons with the criticisms, used their REAL, full names, with accurate, factual criticism, the link would be a bit more appropriate or believeable in its criticisms. Already stated in this discussion by another, quotes, criticism, should be done by using the name of a person, and THEN posting their quote, Joe Smith said such about their experience, etc. Hardly seems legitimate to post a slanderous, libel discussion board with a group of user names. As another said, anyone can say anything on discussion boards, they are anonymous, so why post a link with a bunch of words, written by a group refusing to identify themselves, that could even be all one person using 100 sign on names.

By the way, Matt and Diane don't care if people read AARM. According to emails and pm's we receive, it is the best advertisment for readers to see what behaviors should be expected of Atheists on a website without rules. :-) Rather, I should say, people posing as atheists and friends, as again, they do not use REAL names, who knows what they are.

At least there should be a disclaimer that CARM is not responsible for the 'external links' and does not approve of the language used in the links. People reading this article may THINK someone from CARM approved of the links and article and should be told somewhere in the article, CARM is not responsible for anything written in this website or the external links.

Diane, I don't think this discussion is appropriate for this page, so I'm going to go ahead and e-mail you. --Hyperbole 07:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The CARM forum seems to allow people to use "handles". So does AARM. The names of the administrators are secondary to the operation of the forums. I don't see the problem with linking to forums that allow anonymous postings. Hundred, probably thousands of articles do so. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Copyedited

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)

• One other thing, we have a perspective section now, but we need to make it connect to the rest of the article otherwise it just sits there. Falphin 22:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perspectives

Two versions (the second paragraph of the section hasn't changed and isn't included here):

• 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.

• Most Critics of CARM and Slick generally have worldviews other that Protestantism. The most common complaints center around Slick's debate tatics, his use of moderation, and Natt's method of evangelization. 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.

That's a big change. Do we have any evidence for what "most" citics believe? If we assume that the websites under the "opposition" links are the critivcs, can we characterize them as non-Protestants who complain about Slick's debate tactics? There seems to be some critics who are Mormons as well, I don't see those mentioned. Overall, this section should be better sourced. -Willmcw 22:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm familiar with the complaints. Slick's treatment is the samething as the moderation/debate tatics. And the moderation one sounds more clear so I kept it instead of the other. CARM has a response to Critics but I don't have evidence for what critics think other than asking critics I know. sorry I should of explained that above. Falphin 22:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but your familiarity with the complaints is no basis for our work. Wikipedia:No original research. What we need to do is slog through those opposing websites, or other criticial sources, so we can quote or at least attribute criticisms to specific critics. What we should end up with is something like, "Universalist Christian Joe Blow has criticized CARM for ..." instead of "Some critics have criticized...." We should avoid using any comments on forums, CARM, AARM, etc, as the basis for our edits - anybody can (and will) say anything on a forum. At most we might say that a certain forum contains criticism. For the time being I suggest that we remove the characterization of the critics, and simply list some of the apparently common criticisms, until we can bring in specific attributions. That would give us something like this:

• Common complaints about CARM 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.

Is that acceptable for the time being? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, I didn't create that section, Hyperbole did. I understand the no Original Research, but I think I can find sources. However I do agree that we should make specific names. See my User:Falphin/proposed suggestion to where we are working on the Matt Slick article. I would like to replace the critcism section their with specific events that happened. Falphin 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your draft - my general comment is that it needs better sourcing. Also, you probably don't need so many sections, most of it can come under the heading of "Biography". As with many articles on one-person (mainly) websites is that it is hard to decide where to split information into the bio article versus the website article. I'd suggest that most of the "controversy" section concerns Slick's CARM work and so belongs here. If he's been involved in contoveries independent of CARM then those should go there. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

My hope is to put specific information regarding controversial actions of his on their. But Hyeperbole has a different view. I will source the stuff too. This is just the beginning to it. Falphin 23:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 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.

Just as unnamed critics are frowned upon, so are unnamed supporters. This section needs sources too. I'm cutting this graf down until we can find specific sources that we can quote or attribute. Slick himself could be one. -Willmcw 23:10, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

A recent edit added this to the "perspectives" section:

• Common complaints about CARM center around the CARM's forums' lengthy and sometimes confusing http://www.carm.org/boards/boardrules.htm rules], including concerns about the consistency of their application;...

Would it be better to quote any odd rules in the article? We give a lot of information about the forum and unusual rules would be another item for "facts and figures". That wouldn't cover the complaints about inconsistent application, but it might illustrate the issue better than a quote would (if we had a quote). Just a thought. -Willmcw 23:48, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

These are the rules [11], I think you can go there because it isn't the forum page but I might be wrong. I'm not sure what the odd rules are thougth. Falphin 23:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That page can be considered authoritative about the rules. Any conclusions we draw are another matter. I think that it would be NPOV to mention that, for instance, " CARM’s rules ...are made by the CARM staff with God’s principles in mind", that "there are banned topics on the boards: Universalism (the reason is explained here), and Satanism," or that users "may not post words in mockery of Christian beliefs, or terms offensive in descriptions of our Lord God." Those are rules that are not part of most forums in the Internet. We wouldn't want to call them "odd", which would be POV, but they are unusual and it would not POV to say so, or simply to list them without comment. Listing these rules, if they are the ones people complain about, might be more informative than "saying" the rules are confusing or arbitrary. It's generally better to summarize (since this is an encyclopedia), but sometimes the verbatim text is more concise than a description could be. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the opposite point of view, there is the guestbook located here, with comments on CARM http://new.carmforums.org/cgi-bin/dcguest2/dcguest.cgi

While opponents may post there, it is not the kind of site that we can use for a source. Thanks anyway. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

....Then why link the opposite in the AARM discussion forums? Why is it appropriate to post a link to discussion boards criticizing CARM and not post a link to other opinions? I truly do not understand why an Atheist discussion board is linked to a Christian Apologetics Encyl. article. What is the rationale and purpose? As you stated, anyone can say anything on discussion boards, so why link AARM as it is a link to discussion boards? Di... ps, I don't know how to get my name to appear on this page....sorry! How do I post to the discussion and have my sign on appear...

• add ~ ~ ~ ~ only connect them and then you leave your name. Falphin 01:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. One concerns what we use as sources for assertions in the article. The other concerns links that we provide for readers to get further information. In Wikipedia the general consensus is that specific postings to forums, blogs and similar websites are not useful sources for information. However, a forum or a blog may, on the whole, provide interesting information for further exploration by a reader even if we do not, as an encyclopedia, use it as a reference. For instance, we link to the CARM forum, even though we wouldn't use its postings as sources. Does that make more sense? Cheers, -Willmcw 07:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of Sites

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)

Oppose

• Objective Thought-Response to CARM material from an Objectivist perspective
• Savior-of-all A site critical of CARM from a Christian perspective.
• Sheperd's Chapel-A parody site [This is slightly amusing, but doesn't add useful info]

Pro

• Myfortress A similar site supportive of CARM [The "Refuting Relativism" article is a verbatim copy of an essay on the CARM site - is there other material that doesn't copy CARM?]
• Reachingforchrist A site that commonly uses CARM material

Neutral

• Bede [One short paragraph about CARM]

Other

• [12]

a debate probably can't be used.

• Ok so bee, myfotresss, and sheperds chapel are pointless, along with the debate. What about the others? Falphin 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monkeypox redux

Some editors have removed Slick's reply to Monkeypox. One noted in the edit summary, "Removed link to hateful editorial, not encylopedic material", and the other wrote, " removed insulting and vilifying piece against the Moslem religion". After reading it I do not see how that essay can be considered insulting, hateful, villifying, or unencyclopedic (though the last is moot, since it is not in the encyclopedia). The only time that Slick directly addresses Islam is in this section, which I've copied:

I can't help but point out a profound irony here. Muhammad himself approved of someone lying:

"Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369)." For the context, please go to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html.

If this MonkyPox is so concerned about my honesty and integrity, then why does his prophet Mohammed advocate lying? Of course, I see this as a problem.

While it is possible that, as Monkeypox claims, Slick has misinterpreted the passage, this hardly seems to be hateful. Can the editors who are removing this link please explain why they find this link unacceptable? Thanks, -Willmcw 04:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

On reflection the "Slick Lies" page and Slick's response both seem more directly related to Matt Slick than to CARM. It is a direct conversation between Slick and a non-CARM user (or at least in a non-CARM setting). Therefore, I'll move them over there, where they will be directly relevant. -Willmcw 06:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

...I will remove all of my comments eventually from this page, since the vandals are editing my words to say something I did not say.

We normally strongly discourage removing comments, but I can see the need temporarily. This page is due for an archiving anyway. We can make sure the comments are correctly recorded at that time. Sorry for the vandals, they come with the territory. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Links noted to violate Wikipedia Guidelines and policies

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)

"Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.

By the way, the group from the atheist discussion boards involved to editing this page actually boast of coming to Wiki to write the article and propaganda with attacks on the person of Mr. Slick and CARM.

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)

"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."

Interested Party 16:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)~~

Perspective section removed.

Comments made in the perspective section have no factual basis to suggest what critics say or what supporters say. Where is the evidence or documentation to what critics say? You cannot just place an opinion or propaganda without evidence to support the statement. List the quote of the person or persons stating there are complaints about the moderation. Who decided there were such complaints, where do we find the documentation that such complaints exist? This article is about "propaganda" and there needs to be a review by the wikipedia foundation to the editing and opinions written in this article without facts or support to slander and libel written with no support or documentation to the accusations being made. How do we proceed to appeal the edits on this webpage? 17:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)~~ Interested Party

File an RfC, as I've described on the talk:Matt Slick page. Please note the long discussion above on the "perspective" section, which was a product of consensus that apparently invloved some CARM officials. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

......You would be wrong to the CARM officials continuing to support the "libel" of the anticarm website discussion boards being linked, upon further investigation and counsel, we do not approve of such websites linked that are attacking our character and person. We were misled to the rules initially and upon further reports realize that the WIKI articles is being used to defame.....

Wikipedia generally does not link to discussion forums. Andries 07:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links makes no mention of discussion forums, but it does say that on articles with multiple Points of View, each point of view should be represented by external links. The Wikipedia "CARM" page is a page about a ministry that has a public discussion board that espouses a very particular POV. It would violate the spirit of Wikipedia's external link guideline not to link to a public discussion board that espouses an opposing POV. --Hyperbole 07:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to further objections, new discussion necessary

.....Several CARM members are contributing to this discussion in our discussing the article and giving opinions, though only one of us typing in giving just our opinion. :-)We would be happy to include our names but due to the 'stalker' types that have attacked CARM members in the past with hate mail, etc. and the fact the users here do not use real names, we will not include our names until the time necessary to appealing this to the wikipedia foundation.

1. It is our opinion, the atheist discussion boards should not be linked, as the person states above, discussion boards are not usually posted so why here and in this article? This is an obvious disregard for the wikipedia guidelines, rules to linking chat rooms or discussion by anonymous users.

2. According to the guidelines, if it is a 'shock site' propaganda type website with 'inappropriate' content of libel and slander of persons it should be removed immediately and it is our opinion that the website is such a 'shock site' in using foul language and personal insults and attack and is not with keeping to the NPOV.

3. As for the opinion that the other boards give a different POV on CARM, is again not completely accurate. Our opinion is that a 'shock site' that may be slanderous, libelous of the persons administrating CARM is not giving a different POV on CARM but simply using a wikipedia article to promote propaganda and slander. The CARM discussion boards already give an opposite POV, and the administrators of this wiki article should examine the fact that the CARM discussion boards have an Atheism board, where there are many Atheists giving their POV in keeping with the rules to not using libel or slander to make a point. If the opposite POV is the issue, then link to the CARM JW, LDS and Atheism boards where all points of view are permitted.

4. We have posted in this discussion with our opinion of all of the guidelines being violated by the link and comments on the person of Mr. Slick, and the CARM ministry. It is our opinion, the link should be removed to protect the wikipedia foundation as it may cause a 'libel sanction' for wikipedia according to their own guidelines, is noted by the opinion of some to be a 'shock site' that is supposed to be removed immediately per the guidelines, is not noted to be a "scholarly" point of view on CARM, but opinions of chatters on a discussion forum 198.65.167.211 18:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Interested Parties

If you think a "schock site" is one which uses bad language then you lead a very sheltered life. The most famous shock site was Goatse.cx. Forums are not the ideal links, but since CARM is largely a forum it is more appropriate. If you are contemplating suing the Wikipedia foundation for including a couple of links please say so. Obviously we can't have someone who is planning to sue us particiapting in editing. We are mostly concerned with the content of our article. Is there any libel in our article? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Added CARM response to aarm website

posted the CARM response to the aarm boards.

Correct the number of user stats

Perspectives

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)

External Links

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)

Regarding the complaints about CARM, I have attributed them and given a reference for each. Neiter general critical nor general positive remarks are NPOV. --Irmgard 13:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You may not use references or links to personal websites, partisan groups, such as you have listed in the article. It is forbidden by wikipedia to use atheist websites as they are partisan in opinions, with an agenda to attack Christian websites. Please read the rules of Reliable Sources: "Do 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----- Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves,--other atheist groups--- and even then with caution and sparingly.Peggy Sue 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, I had rewritten the section on contraversy in order to include the details of the critics because of the feuding here by atheist groups. I do prefer your edit, however there also should not be any links to partisan groups. I would appreciate your editing as accurate but the references and links to personal websites of partisan groups should also be removed according to guidelines. I think your approach is accurate to a NPOV and I would agree to your edit if you remove the links to the personal websites where the authors are not identified as published, scholars in the field and do have a partisan agenda. Thank you for your fair and NPOV.Peggy Sue 18:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted to Irmgards excellent, NPOV but I did remove the personal websites of the partisan groups that are not accurate or reliable sources. This page finally looking as it should. Good work Irmgard! :-)Peggy Sue 19:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Regarding censorship critique

Please take note, that accusations of censurship by users banned for forum rules violation in moderated discussion boards are too common to be noteworthy (ask any moderator of a moderated forum). And when such users then move to another forum or open another forum where the former rules do not apply, this again happens so often, that there is no need to describe it at length in an encyclopedia (except maybe in an article about the social psychology of participants in internet debates). So this is nothing that's special to CARM or to the CARM discussion boards and if it gets one short para in the article that's almost more than it deserves. --Irmgard 20:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To Irmgard: I would agree to your position having worked as a moderator on busy discussion forums and chat rooms. I want to thank you as an administrator for giving this article your attention, we have needed an unbiased opinion here for months as an admin. As explained to another admin here, but he suggests that he does not have interest, the group editing this article daily do have an agenda. Please see that the editor, Hyperbole, MdavidN and several others are active members of the AARM forums, http://aarm.mywowbb.com/users/148.html and began this article on CARM, Matt Slick and Ratcliff with a noted bias to controlling the edits of any other contributor in ignoring the wikipedia guidelines repeatedly to their including discussion boards, blogs, and links to personal websites of individuals that had been suspended from the CARM boards. The CARM ministry is huge, a very small part to having discussion boards and the wikipedia article is constantly reverted to the opinions of hyperbole, mdavid and others to focusing on complaints from banned posters. The websites that are linked even now are simply posters that were suspended from CARM for rule violations and are not published or of websites of the same calibur as CARM. Hardly wikipedia material to include links to posters removed from websites for rule violations.

Please revert back to your orginal edit of a very small paragraph minus all the links and comments concerning moderators, etc. It was the only edit thus far that was accurate and NPOV. There is no purpose to including AARM discussion boards an any wikipedia article as there are thousands of such small boards and I will certainly vote for its removal and deletion. I must add that the persons creating this article did so with the intent to advertising their hostile discussion boards from the beginning and continue to edit daily to anyone removing the aarm discussion boards or hostile chat rooms. Simply look to the history, other editors repeatedly and constantly deleted and removed by hyperbole who is an active aarm board poster. Would also point you to the Matt Slick article which is more of the same to POV and information not necessary to a wikipedia article, also written, edited and controlled daily by hyperbole.Interested Party 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To make one point clear: I am no administrator here in the English wikipedia, only in the German wikipedia. But I sure do have some Wikipedia experience, which does not depend on the language version.

I am well aware that the websites linked to do by far not have the caliber of CARM, but they should be shown as evidence for the views stated (Wikipedia:Cite sources). Actually, I don't think that's really bad for CARM - it demonstrates the level of the critics better than any long arguments. My first para did not take into account the atheist discussion board problems - this is, as I said, nothing special, but it should be taken up separately from critique based on CARM articles. Regarding AARM - that's up to the decision of the Wikipedia community.

• To the administrator Will, I am not Tom S. actually he is my brother-in-law. I am editor Interested Party and you have blocked three different people. This will be reported. Interested Party

How interesting that you all sound exactly the same, you all make the same grammatical mistakes, you all make the same reverts, and you do it one account at a time. We weren't born yesterday. --Hyperbole 02:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well surprise, surprise, arent we the smart one. And you figured that out all by yourself Hyperbole? Well I am impressed, But guess what? WRONG ! again... I guess thats what happens when you try to think. We are three different people, not just one using different accounts. But then maybe we are? Hey being in 3 different places at the same time is pretty good trick isnt. Lets see you do that? And by the way this is Tom, and peggy sue does at times type for me, so if seems to look the same on here that might be why. So if anything that is said to or about peggys sue is also being said to me.... And you really dont want to do that... By the way did think up that name ( Hyperbole) all by yourself?? Or did your mother not like you.... I really think you need to get a job and a life,,,,later dude Tom

and yes Tom is Tom Peggy Sue is Diane and Interested Party is a family memeber

Reverting

Will people please stop reverting the article? That doesn't really help move it forwrd at all. If need be, we can ask to have the page locked while users use these discussion pages to reach a consensus. -Willmcw 06:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tentmaker link is a personal website, against the rules. Gary A. is TENTMAKER, banned from discussion forums as to his trolling, it is not an appropriate link to a wikipedia article, he was removed, banned from discussion forums as a troll, his website is a personal rant, according to guidelines is NOT to be used as a source, OR external link, see post on Matt slick discussion. Wikipedia does not use personal rants, of unauthorized websites links. We will only remove the links from the rant webpages and will attempt to find a credible criticism by a reliable source as a criticism of CARM. Will not revert but will remove the link till someone provides a guideline suggesting personal rant websites are to be used for references or links. Peggy Sue.

• This section copied below needs cleaning up. typos, dates here twice. links to internet trolls and websites, up for deletion on wikipedia. As stated by Irmgard, there is not reason to have internet discussion forums of ratcliff and aarm linked, for what possible reason?

I will fix this section, PLEASE don't remove the corrected verson unless you revert back to a discussed version. Yes Irmgard did a clean up but this revert is not the version approved by everyone. Look at the errors

"As many other moderated discussion forums, the CARM forums are also occasionally under fire from people who were excluded due to breaking the forum rules and who interpret this exclusion als censure of their views. This got especially violent [6] when in 2001 the CARM Universalism board in 2001 was closed down and an accompanying ban of all discussion of Universalism by CARM due to the numerous flame wars, insults and ad hominem attacks involved in the discussions with the Universalists on CARM [7]. 2001 John W. Ratcliff in whose view some atheists were being systematically excluded from CARM, created an alternative unmoderated forum AARM, independent from CARM and with less strictly observed rules. This resulted in an atheist exodus from CARM into the alternative forum. As there are several users on this forum which have been banned or suspended by CARM, the mutual relations are nothing less than amicable. [8] will fix this with the help of Irmgard. Peggy

More research, posted on Matt Slick as well

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)

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)

To Willwmc and Irmgard: List here a link to your talk. Hyperbole is lying in the history of CARM. Tom, Peggy, Interested Party, will give you our phone numbers to discuss the edits, and we told you they were slandererss on the aarm 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 edits of hyperbole, as we will give you our phone numbers and IP numbers and ask to speak with you on the phone in order to PROVE he is lying and that the three of us do live in New Jersey. Which is why we are editing with IP's and not signing on, he accuses all three of us constantly. Peggy00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Slick"

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)

• Better catch up on the rules hyperbole, groups are permitted to edit articles, we checked before ever using the Interested Parties name. We did get penalized as one person, though the rules state otherwise that each one in the group is entitled to an edit, we were blocked and your group of biased editors continued to BASH Carm in the articles. Since it is obvious that you brought a.a.r.m members, several editors listed in the a.a.r.m member list, to the CARM article to bash CARM, and the article on Matt Slick, with the agenda to promote the aarm boards, a POV, and your continuing to disobey the wikipedia rules, it was necessary that we each sign in a different account per the admins instruction, rather than posting as a group. We have as much interest in wikipedia articles as the other members from aarm that you brought here. We have been involved for two months to trying to get the article balanced, and no, do not participate on other articles as this is the subject where we are aware of the facts and have done the research. The continuous refusal of you and friends to adhere to the wikipedia guidelines, rules, of wikipedia, even to your disagreeing with experienced wiki admins telling you that aarm discussion boards have no place or purpose here, is the reason we are here. There are no others as interested in this article but either the three of us, or you and and the aarm members editing here. Willmcw, admits he is not interested, Irmgard edited and his edits ignored by you, so we will stick with this till the article is fair and balanced. We are not trying to stop criticism but to have reliable, respectable authors linked here in criticsm. Discussion boards of anonymous users are NOT permitted in the guidelines and rules, as it has been posted here many, many times to the rules. Added, some of the earlier blocks were misunderstanding to not RV but edits being treated as RV where we did not put M for minor edit, we have since learned the difference. See guidelines again below, the guidelines on external links state the same.[[User:|Peggy Sue]] 17:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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."Peggy Sue 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • PS. Hyperbole now including a link to a page discussion board, that has nothing but a picture, and registration page. There are no comments, is not a public website, is a propaganda website discussion boards website, with NO content on the page. Ridiculous. aarm boards are discussion boards, and a link to discussion boards that slander CARM with simply a picture is certainly not an appropriate for an encyclopedia. When are you going to give up this nonsense to linking discussion pages?Peggy Sue 17:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

• • The above statement is not accurate, more false statements. there are not 100 people leaving CARM posting on aarm, we can post here the facts that many of the users on aarm, have two, three or more user names. Would you like to see the documentation, at least one poster had 3 user names and five moderator and account numbers as an account? Secondly, many of the users signing on to aarm DID NOT LEAVE CARM, that is another false accusation. Many of the users still post on CARM, signed on to aarm and do not regularly post on the aarm boards. Please list the names of the hundred people that left CARM? Prove it or admit you are again, here to BASH CARM with an agenda and making false statements. There is a list of 20 or less that actively post on aarm boards, and several of that 20 are still active members of CARM. Please check the membership list to see the number of posters active on the sight, hyperbole and his friends are few in number. JRatcliff admitted to changing his boards this morning. Here are rules again for external links:Peggy Sue 20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • I take it that you don't deny Hyperbole's statement that Interested Party, Peggy S and Tom S are really all Diane, not different Wikipedians? Urbie 21:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Actually you are probably hyperbole signing in and out, and yes, the three of us can identify ourselves. Offered, all three of us to talk on the phone with the admin. Can you identify yourself, hyperbole?68.44.255.244 23:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I'm sure you can get your husband and sister to identify themselves over the phone. But that doesn't really settle the issue of whether or not you are the one behind all of the editing done under the guise of Interested Party, Peggy Sue, Tom S, etc. Anyway, if you wish for Hyperbole to identify himself, I suggest you talk to him, not me. Thanks. Urbie 23:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

External linksEvaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask from the University of California, Berkeley Critically Analyzing Information Sources from Cornell University Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia"“http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html What are the author's credentials on this subject?

• •Does the purported background or education look like someone who is qualified to write on this topic?
• •Might the page be by a hobbyist, self-proclaimed expert, or enthusiast?*oIs the page merely an opinion? Is there any reason you should believe its content more than any other page?
• Is the page a rant, an extreme view, possibly distorted or exaggerated?*•If you cannot find strong, relevant credentials, look very closely at documentation of sources (next section).Anyone can put anything on the web for pennies in just a few minutes. Your task is to distinguish between the reliable and questionable."Peggy Sue 20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

• • More false statements, the rules state, that discussion boards, blogs, personal websites are NEVER, not, to be used as reliable sources. The 194 posters to aarm do not exist according to wikipedia standards, many of the accounts are bogus, there are about 20 active users. Hyperbole is using the CARM and Matt Slick articles on wikipedia to promote his aarm discussion boards, where JRatcliff solicits money from the users, asking for 10 dollars from the users and he makes them a moderator. The boards are a sham, they are not to be used as critics as they are anonymous users, where the 194 accounts could in fact be the same person. Wikipedia does not permit linking to discussion boards, blogs, it is stated many times in the rules, hyperbole has an agenda, including accusations that any person NOT agreeing with him is the same person. Different IP's, different user names, different states, and his agenda to CARM bashing is noted, over, over and over again. Hyperbole has one interested in CARM and Matt Slick and that is to bash them through this article. Is obvious to anyone seeing the history. Peggy Sue 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Peggy Sue, it has been pointed out ad nauseam that according to the Wikipedia guidlines, discussion boards are not to be used as sources (unless sources about themselves), not that they cannot be linked to at all. In any case, I think you would do well to consider Wikipedia's fifth unchangeable pillar: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules... including this one."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" Urbie 22:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • What common sense is there hyperbole, signed in as urbie, to linking athesits 'hate' websites to a Christian Website article. Especially when every experienced wikipedian will tell you that it is ridiculous, hyperbole signed on as new user to doing CARM and Matt Slick, his agenda is stated elsewhere, with documentation, he is an atheist that hates CARM, and he is editing this article, talk about perspective. I know exactly what is going on, I see a propaganda group that openly states 'hatred' for CARM and its administration using this article to promote their slander and libel. Please show us what other articles you are working on that are linking to propaganda, hate website discussion boards, full of profanity and slander? Every person that has clicked on the link can see exactly what it is. Good, if we are going to "ignore" all rules, then I expect to be able to RV this article as many times as I please, as well as my husband and every other person in the USA being accused of being me.Peggy Sue 05:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

• I didn't put the names together, however, that makes it worse. ANOTHER aarm propaganda pusher editing the CARM and Slick articles. That makes four or five, and I don't believe these are independent but here simply to reinforce your POV edits. By the way, another lie, you have no idea when CARM updates it list, go back a couple months and check, every three months on the average the inactive users are removed. It was down to 5000 or so a few months ago, when the inactive removed, and the boards cleaned to include post back to January. You continue to post false information, inaccurate statements, and have no business working on this article. Check your FACTS, a wiki rule, as a CARM admin I can assure you that you are WRONG, as usual. If urbie is editing, is same as your account, same thing.Peggy Sue 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to assure Diane and company that I am not a pushy pov propaganda pusher. I am an independent thinker whose intentions are thoroughly encyclopedic. Cordially,Urbie 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The registered users problem

CARM has somewhat more than 6,000 registered users. It's received, over the last year, an average of around 900 posts per day, and since that's fallen in the last few months, it's safe to say CARM receives no more than 750 posts per day. Thus, the idea that 6,000 users are active on the site is ridiculous. Diane claims she "cleans" out inactive users every three months, but a quick glance over CARM's site shows that to be untrue. For starters, I still have a "registered" account there. Even Limana still has a registered account there, despite having been deactivated and having not made a posting for a year. Now, there are four basic choices here:

• 1. Write only that there are six thousand registered users. To me, this seems very POV-in-favor, because it seems to imply that CARM is far larger than it is.
• 2. Write that there are six thousand registered users, but that most of them are inactive or have been deactivated. This, while accurate, seems POV-opposed, because it seems to imply that CARM is slow to maintain itself and/or represents itself as being larger than it is. Although I believe both those things to be true, the implications thereof aren't encyclopedic.
• 3. Write that there are six thousand registered users, several hundred of which are active on the site. That doesn't carry quite the skeptical connotation. I consider this one slightly POV-opposed, but perhaps the best choice if we're going to keep the information in.
• 4. Simply don't include the number of registered users. While that excludes a piece of information, I believe it is the most NPOV choice.

I'd like to see a suggestion or two from someone other than the Dianes. I just don't feel comfortable with the article representing CARM as some gigantic message board with thousands and thousands of posters when, in reality, it's quite slow compared to others I've seen. --Hyperbole 05:01, 26 August 2005 (

• You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, MOST of the time.

Every three months, we delete the accounts back one year. If a person not posting in a year they are removed. Since Limana just logged in to attack a user a few months back, her account will not be removed till a YEAR from the date we dump the files. We remove all users BACK a year every three months and we removed ALL the posts back to January 2005 as you can see in pages going back. We may or may not continue to dump the user list as most websites leave their lists forever, CARM only leaves the list to anyone not logging in for a year. Again, every three months we DELETE all accounts not active for a year. Tell us, how many have the aarm boards deleted, and are they all active? Probably 20 active users on aarm. So tell Limana NOT to sign in to personally insult users and her account will also be deleted one year from her last insult in the ratings.

Please do not bring up encyclopedic when you add nonsense discussion forums to the references. Remove the CARM boards entirely and then REMOVE the ridiculous aarm forums, if you want to be encyclopedic. But please don't suggest these articles resemble any encyclopedic article, as they do not.

If you are going to mention "slow" discussion boards, how about the 10 people that post daily to the boards, YOU have linked here? They shouldn't even be mentioned and you want to compare what is or isn't slow? CARM is not ABOUT discussion boards, it is a ministry with 25,000 hits a week. At last count on the counter, the boards received more then a million a month. And the boards are NOT slow, but the average as they always are every summer. The only slow times was a month where we had software problems that have since been resolved.

Take OFF the discussion boards totally, who cares. Remove all discussion about the boards, they are a very small part of CARM, and then remove all the rest of the nonsense that is posted about the 20 people leaving CARM boards to start their own. It is ridiculous and not necessary to the article, and NO ONE CARES, but the 3 or 4 atheists here.

Don't even try to tell us what the stats are, you are completely making it up in your head as well as the rest of the propaganda you posted here. I read the stats and you are way off. CARM boards are not trying to BUILD our numbers, we remove threads and posters to keep the boards clean, we are not trying to have the LARGEST numbers on the boards, if so, we wouldn't continue to dump the threads and the user lists. This article is trashy, biased, POV and no one will believe a word of it anyway.User:Peggy Sue 03:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A) what are the membership of the others you've seen that are busier? Maybe 6,000 is low for a forum. One that I've looked at claims almost 60,000 active members (though I'm doubtful of that number.)

B) What about their total number of messages? Is that easy to obtain by adding the per-subforum totals? It could be represented as something like: "Since its founding in XXXX, over 20,000 messages have been posted to CARM's 20 different forums."

C) It's fair and NPOV to say something like "CARM reports 6,000 active members", which makes it clear who is providing the data. -Willmcw 05:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)