Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 2

The NPOV notice

Okay, so Diane deleted the contoversy section and then stuck a NPOV notice in its place, claiming that the section has an anti-Christian slant. Obviously that's not the way to go about it - to remove the material you consider NPOV and to *also* put up a NPOV notice. Exactly the same thing happened on the Matt Slick page. So, my question - is it appropriate to have those NPOV notices up there? Is there some kind of process - besides the normal course of editing - to determine when something is acceptably NPOV? --Hyperbole 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• The notice will remain, as will further appeals to the dispute being settled. This article and the Matt Slick article are POV and propaganda.Peggy Sue 03:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would agree, Peggy S. Except,it seems to me, that your contributions and tactics are the most propagandistic (and POV) parts of the article in question.Urbie 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my view, most of the critique/controversy is, factual or not, justified or not, simply "not newsworthy" because it is not CARM specific.

• That groups anywhere listed as cults do protest this, is routine

• Same for atheists and Evangelical websites, and the example for atheist argumentation is nothing above the ordinary to be found in any usenet discussion.

• That people who are suspended in a a moderated forum scream "censorship" happens in any religious and not religious moderated forum and also in not-forum places (e.g. Zeal or Wikipedia). And even alternative forums are nothing unusual at all. So all this stuff has not much to do with CARM specifically - it belongs (in a general way) in the articles Cult, Evangelicalism and Usenet.

What can deserve some mention is the Universalist controversy, but for the rest, it's just not of general interest (except, of course, for some people hot in the fight) and it does not contribute to an interesting online encyclopedia. --Irmgard 13:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Irmgard, any other article on wikipedia concerning ministries, etc. would not have four or five paragraphs on controversy that exist but for a very small group of people complaining and yet deciding to use this article for one purpose and that is to promote their bias, slander, propaganda. Every ministry is going to have groups that disagree with the doctrines, and every moderated discussion forum will have people removed for rule violations. The Universalists were the same. Tentmaker was the worse poster for rule violations that ever posted on the boards as Matt has shown in the rebuttals written. The Universalist issue happened in 2001, and was only a small group, same as with the atheists. They were removed for RULE violations. If this type of nonsense is going to remain in the article, it should simply be deleted, as it is being used by a group that seeks to slander CARM, anyone reading it can see it. The controversy and critical views from Matt and CARM should be removed and the article locked to prevent the propagandist from using it.Peggy Sue 14:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is true that much of the controversy is a reflection of the sort of controversy that one finds on Internet forums in general. However, I believe it is noteworthy that the CARM forums, in particular, appear to generate a far greater share of this sort of controversy than the average Internet forum, and that CARM manages to receive similar criticisms from virtually every theological corner (i.e., from Atheists, Catholics, fellow Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Muslims, Universalists, etc.). I have to disagree with the opinion that the section is not CARM specific.Urbie 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Can you prove that? Prove your statement that CARM receives more criticism. There are two situations listed, a very small group of Universalists in 2001 and a very small group of atheists that left the boards in 2004. I manage the forums and the moderators and what you are saying is a lie, an absolute lie with no support or truth to your accusation. This above statement is not fact, but opinion again, of a biased person that is a member of an anti-CARM group seeking to slander a ministry.

Please see the CARM discussion forums as evidence, where ALL the groups you mention are represented with many posters from each group to the forums. You want to know how many complaints I receive concerning the forums? Maybe one or two a month, if that, and usually it is in reference to complaints about a particular poster not to anything near to what you are saying. I have been with CARM seven years or longer, and your statement above is false. CARM discussion boards do NOT receive such criticisms but actually praised to the quality of the forums and the fair moderation. This is a lie that the boards are criticized by all groups you mention, not fact, and more propaganda. The CARM doctrines are criticized because they are in disagreement with the other religious groups, obviously. However, your statement that CARM forums receive more criticism is a lie, another outright, lie.68.44.255.244 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been to a great many other discussion forums, but I find that CARM is constantly under fire - and not just from one or two malcontents, but from dozens and dozens of disaffected users - for the behavior of its founder and moderators. In my view, excluding that fact from the Wikipedia page would paint a completely false picture of CARM - and that's not something we should be doing here. --Hyperbole 18:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nonsense, the discussion forums are very popular, and are not always under fire, but what is expected for ANY Christian ministry, you are making that up based on the opinion of your very small group and writing an article based on a biased VERY small group with a propaganda, partisan view. You are speaking of a small group that you know on an atheist website. They better criticize CARM, they are atheists and it is expected that unbelievers will attack Christian ministries, and so? When are you going to get it, that CARM is not a discussion forum. CARM is a Christian ministry with the discussion forums a small part of the ministry. The forums are NOT under fire by large numbers of users, if so, they wouldn't be as popular as to have over 6000 users, but from your atheist friends and small group of supporters with an agenda to advertise the pathetic atheist forums. You are right about one thing, you obviously do not participate on many forums, as is obvious. For a forum as large as CARM to have a group of atheists and liberals whining and complaining, is EXPECTED. Do you really think that moderated discussion forums are never going to have people that cannot follow the rules. Your Ratcliff, admitted he comes to Christian forums to start trouble as a troll....... CARM has 6100 registered members, with a few complaining, and anyone suspended from CARM in the last couple of years are ALL on your atheist discussion boards that consistes of about 10 regular posters which is an insignificant, nonsense website compared to the CARM ministries. One more time, mentioning a group of 20 posters whining, as "constantly" under fire, is an attempt to make it an issue, when it is expected as Irmgard stated. Get real and visit some other Christian discussion forums, MOST won't even let atheists register. Tell us, what ministry is NOT constantly under fire from unbelievers? This entire article is ridiculous.68.44.255.244 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I’ve been a participant in many theological forums and have been observing CARM for at least five years now, and have communicated with several people who have been active participants on CARM since its inception. Complaints of CARM’s unfairness to users who are otherwise well respected and well behaved are certainly not few and far between. Significant disputes (over forum moderation, not doctrine) have irupted with Roman Catholics and Liberal Christians in addition to the more recent, disputes with Atheists and Universalists. Your suggestion of looking to the CARM discussion forums as evidence of CARM’s alleged fairness is stange given the fact that the moderators are rather diligent in deleting posts that are even remotely critical of CARM’s moderation and critics are told to discuss their views in private. Looking at the CARM forums will only provide evidence of exactly the opposite of what you are intending to prove. And just for the record, I will point out that I am not an "unbeliever", but a Christian who happens to have a masters degree in theology.Urbie 20:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are no disputes with Roman Catholics over the moderation of the boards, that is not true. Name one person removed from the RC board that did not violate the rules. Name ONE! The Catholic complaint about CARM is that CARM is "anti-Catholic" in its doctrine, but that is their gripe with doctrine, NOT with the boards or their moderation. In fact, I can provide proof and statements from TOP Catholic apologists that have posted on our forums with no objection to the CARM forum moderation. That is not true to what you state. Please do NOT confuse disagreement with CARM's doctrinal position as equal to criticism of the moderation of the forums. They do not exist but one in thousands and thousands of post. If you look to the CARM Catholic board, it is the number one board on CARM, and is because both sides permitted to speak freely as long as they do not insult one another with personal attacks. Yes, we remove criticism of the moderation on the forums, doesn't matter, the numbers are there, VERY few people removed from CARM. I see the lists, do you? Now find a person removed from CARM that did not break a rule of personal insulting an individual or spamming the boards. I would be interested in hearing from the person. You simply are posting ideas here about disagreement in doctrines but there is NOT unfair treatment of our posters. If so, the RC board would not be the most popular as it has the MOST moderators and is the most popular board with as many if not MORE Catholic posters than Noncatholic. Again, I point you to the forums, look to the posters, and COUNT the number of Christians on each forum and compare it to the other side posting. You are wrong. I am not impressed with your Theology degree, anyone can claim to be a believer. A believer in what? CARM forums speak for themselves and yes we remove slander of moderators if it would happen on the boards and ask the persons to take the arguments to pm or email. Again, very few are removed from CARM and only IF they violate the rules. The Scripture teaches you how to deal with an offense from a brother, 'go to the brother, just between the two of you" and the Lord Jesus never said, post the slander and libel publically to attacking others. That is the aarm theology, not the CARM position. If you have a Theology degree, then I am sure you have read Matthew 18.Peggy Sue 20:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"The user who visits Wikipedia "

"The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." (McHenry, 2004).

Diane, you've made it repeatedly clear, both here and elsewhere, that you don't respect Wikipedia, its guidelines, or its mission. That really does raise the question of whether any of your edits here are made in good faith. --Hyperbole 18:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, the idea of wikipedia is respectable as long as the users are honest, I don't respect several of the editors to this article or the CARM article as to writing in "good faith" to a NPOV. The bias is permitted and that is my objection to wikipedia. Anyone with any authority to keep the article NPOV is ignoring the articles and persons such as yourself and the other anti-CARM group are permitted to use the articles for propaganda. This simply reinforces the criticisms of wikipedia, that partisan, propaganda pushers are free to USE wikipedia, and that is exactly what has happened here.207.67.144.61 18:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • User 207.67.144.61, I believe you are committing the Fallacy of Poisoning the Well: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.Urbie 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • As stated here many, many times, find a reliable source as given in the wikipedia guidelines, to source the controversy. A group of anonymous users on a discussion board, and a personal website of an atheist, or a universalist that have no credentials or reliability are NOT to be used to write encyclopedia articles and give opinions on a person or a ministry. The editors on this article, have used propaganda discussion boards and websites, have ignored repeatedly the wikipedia guidelines and rules on "sources" to writing biased POV, and the article is written poorly, no documentation but of a group of whiners that were removed from a discussion board for rule violations. The CARM and Matt Slick articles should be deleted if this is the best you can do.Peggy Sue 20:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Forum wars not noteable

The CARM site deserves an article due to its size and quality of content (if the content was completely undisputed, it would not be in any way remarkable) - not necessarily because of the forums, that's to be found in other places as well. Matt Slick should rather be merged into the CARM site, just being author of CARM is a bit short of Wikipedia criteria for a bio article. I'll suggest a merge.

On the other hand, the CARM-AARM war is not noteable - that's for the books of both sides. Almost all people who are not Evangelical Calvinists disagree with Evangelical Calvinists - already Martin Luther and John Wesley did, not only Catholics and Atheists of today. Any professed Evangelical Calvinist who is publishing on the web is catching fire in proportion to the number of visitors on his site. I've seen the same in Compuserve at the beginning of the nineties and the same stuff is going on in the usenet today (same arguments, different people). It is not noteable and it has nothing to do with Slick or CARM - the same sort of attacks including personal critique has happened before, is happening and will happen to any other who offers any worldview and sticks with it instead of gracefully giving in to people with different opinions. And in any forum with six thousand members there will be a percentage with not so good forum manners, and a small percentage which can get any philosopher or saint up in the boughs - for which he then is blamed. Nothing special either - Matt Slick is human (did you expect he wasn't?). What might be remarkable, as a psychological curiosity, is the fact that some people started years ago with AARM and are still so busy with fighting CARM that they do think that's what makes CARM noteworthy. Sure, everyone has the right to fight his private internet war for any cause as long as he likes to - but an encyclopedia is no place where to conduct such wars.

As to anti-Christian bias - well, there is no reason to expect that critique of CARM comes mainly from conservative Christians, and the views of the critics are not neutral like CARM's views are not neutral. This is ok in an encyclopedia, if attributed. But most of it belongs to general critique of Evangelicalism or Calvinism and there's no reason to repeat it here - the article should be linked to those articles and there the critics have room to actually use arguments and not just say they are against it. --Irmgard 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Irmgard, a correction, the aarm discussion boards have existed for less than a year, not years, that is why they came here to write about their boards, in seeking to advertise and get members using CARM's popularity to seek members, which they continue to do even to spamming our board PMs to inviting people to join them. Would someone please correct Willmcw, that has been here on and off for months and still believes CARM is simply a discussion forum and it is NOT. I doubt he has ever even looked at the CARM website, suggesting Ratcliff is known and Matt Slick is not. Ridiculous, Matt is a published author and well known Apologist, the website is huge, thousands articles on Christianity written by Matt, with 26,000 members PLUS the 6000 on the boards, and it is becoming more and more frustrating to get anyone to listen here............AARM is nothing but a chat room, no articles, is just a chat room, and a pathetic one at that. Secondly, CARM is not a Calvinist website. I am not Calvinist and work for CARM, Matt does not bring Calvinism to CARM but maintains Evangelical teachings that all orthodox Christians can relate to. The Apologetics Ministry is neutral to being Evangelical in the Theology School and Apologetics School, and used by Universities and Churches to the articles on CARM. Willmcw, keeps referring to CARM as discussion boards, we are not, but that focus is brought here by the atheists and their supporters. Matt Slick is a published author and speaker, CARM is NOT about the discussion boards and would still be a popular ministry even without the discussion forums. The membership to CARM is 26,000 receiving news letters, a prayer ministry, new persons signing on the Theology and Apologetics schools continuously. The discussion boards are simply a very small part of the ministry and of course all discussion boards have those that violate the rules and removed. The aarm boards should not even be mentioned here, and only a sentence even to the CARM article that we have boards as part of the ministry. The CARM website itself, gets more hits than the article here will ever receive, but it should at least be accurate. CARM is a popular Apologetics ministry, Matt Slick a well known apologist, and the fact that Willmcw, Urbie and Hyperbole want to suggest CARM is the discussion boards, which are NOT that important is the reason we have problems with this articles. Even the admin here doesn't have a clue what CARM is about and thinks it is a discussion board with 6000 members, that is simply NOT true. It is a ministry with 26,000 active in receiving Newsletters, offering support to CARM but 6000 registered members to our forums a small part of the ministry and I surely wish someone would CORRECT this error, to at least informing the admin here.Peggy Sue 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed merger, albeit for different reasons. Matt Slick does not seem to have significant achievements outside of CARM, a situation similar to Jim Robinson, founder of the Free Republic. In the general scheme of things webforums belong on a shelf near the Pokemon characters. As a phenomenon they are interesting, individually they are hard to verify and questionably notable. Our currently-debated wikipedia:websites project is considering setting a notability threshold of 'Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members'. CARM has around 6,000, just above wiki-obscurity. AARM is far lower. Collectively, the whole Slick/CARM//AARM/ topic is worth one article, with Ratcliff deserving a separate article because of his video game work. IMHO. -Willmcw 09:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• • • To Willmcw: ONE MORE TIME Will, I have told you this many times and you either don't read or refuse to listen to me. CARM is not about discussion boards. CARM is an Apologetics ministry, with a Theology and Apologetics School, and articles on Christianity, with the boards a very small part of the ministry. Matt Slick is a published author and speaker, he has written thousands of articles for CARM. He is a Calvinist but doesn't write about Calvinism on CARM. CARM has over 26,000 members receiving news letters not 6000, but FIVE TIMES THAT, and 25,000 hits to the Home Page articles weekly. CARM is not a group with 6000 members, you keep referring to CARM as to the discussion boards which are the least popular of all of the ministry, it is not a blog, is not just discussion boards that are just part, a very small part of the ministry. The CARM discussion boards don't even deserve mentioning other than a sentence as to their importance to the article about CARM Apologetics Ministry and its features. Again, CARM is not, simply a discussion board, that is what aarm is about, not CARM. The most visited parts to CARM have NOTHING to do with the discussion boards. This article, and the Matt Slick article focus on the boards and should not, the ministry is an Apologetic Ministry, one of the top on the internet. We receive letters from Universities and Churches that the articles are used by students and pastors for teaching purposes. The aarm boards and J. Ratcliff are known to no one but a handful of people, that are just a discussion website and CARM is not. First of all, aarm just started less than a year ago, is not a website is simply a chatroom set up to mock the CARM ministry. The aarm boards have less than 200 people registered with about 20, if that regular members. AARM doesn't deserve mentioning anywhere, but the two people here focused on the CARM boards have left a WRONG impression, CARM is not a discussion board, why you keep saying that is bizarre. Have you even looked to see what it is. The boards, linked at the bottom of the website as a service, but again, CARM is not a discussion board, AARM is a discussion board just created. CARM is a Theology school, an apologetic Ministry. Posting this two places so that MAYBE you will see it. You don't even know what CARM is after all this time, it is NOT A DISCUSSION BOARD, why are you listening to these people from aarm, they are focused on their aarm boards trying to make CARM look like it is about the discussion boards, and the boards don't matter at all to the article on CARM. Sigh!Peggy Sue 16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First of all, I dispute the 26,000 number. I seriously doubt that you could produce that, Diane. Secondly, you are wrong about the AARM numbers. I did a 15 minute scan this morning and came up with 70 or so active members within the last week. I'm sure you will want to apoligise to Hyperbole for calling him a liar about that. Thirdly, I have participated on CARM for 8 years. I was NEVER there for the articles. It was always the boards that attracted me. And finally, why shouldn't the Wiki admin listen to us? We are far more credible than you are. After all... you aren't even sure who you are... Peggy, erm Diane, I mean, Tom, oh wait its just an interested party... Kinda makes all your moaning about using real names.... sort of hypocritical doesn't it. kcs_hiker

If there is a merger of articles, the critical sections should remain as these are not general criticisms of Evangelicalism or Calvinism, but are criticisms specific to CARM and Slick.Urbie 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt they are meant for CARM and Slick in this specific case, but the same arguments have been used before for any number of Calvinists, conservative Evangelicals resp. forum administrators - so they are not really specific. Regarding CARM: it's not only a forum site. The minimum Alexa count for websites has been given as 10'000, CARM has 45'000, not "the" biggest apologetic site, but one of the major ones. Irmgard 13:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Urbie is a member of the aarm forums and wants to focus on discussion boards seeking membership for their anti-CARM group. The CARM website is not about the boards, something even Willmcw doesn't know. He thinks CARM is a disussion board, and it is not. I surely wish someone would inform the admin here of the facts as written abouve. The CARM homepage on a different server even then the boards receives over 25,000 hits regularly, with individual articles updated, we have 26,000 supporters and members receiving news letters, not just 6000, and I cannot believe that people from an atheist website seeking membership for their group are directing this article to our boards which are a very small part to what CARM is about...... This article need not even give more than one sentence to the discussion boards as very small part of the ministry. The most popular parts of CARM are the articles, the Theology and Apologetics schools, Matt's books, etc..Peggy Sue 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I understand that CARM is not only a forum site, but I believe that it is the forums that make CARM newsworthy, making criticism of the forums newsworthy. Perhaps you could direct me to the common criticism of Calvinist/Evangelical forum administrators. That would be helpful.Urbie 14:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CARM is one man's online ministry - a place for one guy to espouse his views - with accompanying discussion boards. The criticism of that man and his boards is, in my view, exactly as notable as the man and his boards themselves. If the criticism of CARM is non-notable enough that it should be merged into some generic "Evangelical Christianity" page, then so should CARM itself. --Hyperbole 18:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging Matt Slick into CARM

Can anyone suggest reasons why Matt Slick should not be merged in CARM? If so, please would they do so here? —Theo (Talk) 17:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Koukl, Matt is listed in the Christian writer category, and certainly is as known as such as Greg, and others. Matt is an author and Christian writer, does deserve mention as a writer. It really doesn't matter, but CARM is a website of thousands of articles, books, schools of theology and apologetics written by Matt, and certainly as a Top Christian Apologetic website he should receive some mention68.44.255.244 19:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think his importance as a Christian author is marginal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is the author of only one professionally published work (Right Answers for Wrong Beliefs). There is also the CARM notebook, a compilation of the CARM website material, but I believe that is a self-publication.Urbie 20:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The only differences I can see in making the merge would be that 1) The CARM article would include a lot more information on the subject of Matt Slick, placing more emphasis on him in that article; and 2) Some of the duplicative "history of controversy" stuff on the two articles could be consolidated. I see those changes as neutral-leaning-beneficial. Without even addressing the subject of notability (as I still really don't have a great grip on what is and isn't notable), I'd cast a very weak vote in favor of the merge. --Hyperbole 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Matt is at least as notable as Greg Koukl. People are generally shown leniency when it comes to notability. Anyway, I believe he fits under the Published author test of 5,000 or more known audience and I believe he also passes the google test considering he has direct hits on page 10(I didn't look past that). Google Search, "Matt Slick" Also, CARM is not the same thing as Slick which is why Slick has his own seperate webpage outside of CARM. Falphin 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Matt shows just how small and insignificant CARM is with his following quote

" Since it is my discussion board and since I can apply the rules on it, if you call Calvinism wicked in any way again, I will ban you permanently." Matt Slick 09/17/2005

Any online ministry, especially one that isn't biased towards Calvinism as that member that Wikipedia banned, named Diane has repeatedly said, should be able to march on in its massive path toward the non denominational ministry it claims. Oh wait, I guess Matts recent quote from last weekend shows how small and insignificant CARM really is if he has to micromanage opinions to ensure a Calvinistic bias is all that gets presented.

If you remove the discussion boards from CARM it is nothing more than a store front to sell Matt Slicks 1 book and a variety of novelty rubbish with CARM stamped on it. Combine Matt Slick and CARM, together they almost make a blip on the interest scale.

Why is Diane still posting here after she was banned? Is pretending that she is her sister actually granting her the right to ignore Wikipedia bannings?

• Suspensions are for 24 hours, my sister did post here and she posts on CARM forums. Do you make it your life to attack and accuse others falsely?Diane S 21:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New Wikipedia User Reads Article and Weighs In

The article looks fine to me as currently written. It is informative about its topic, and POV neutral in my opinion. I do believe the link to the opposing site "AARM" should remain, provided it retains its current simple explanation that it is a link to an opposing POV external site. It is up to the user if he or she wishes to traverse that link. I chose not to traverse that link or any other link related or supporting. There may be continuing legalistic arguments about this issue, but that's the way I see it as a visitor who just chose to traverse the Community Portal link that said, "please have a look at this article that is under dispute" just to see how this sort of thing works, and then I undertook to read the article on its merits alone. Furthermore, it seems to me that this discussion seemed to be converging (although acrimoniously) towards a solution, then degraded back to "topic" argumentation rather than "article quality" argumentation, unfortunately making the "article" discussion forum, a "topic" discussion forum. If there are any real neutral people remaining with this topic, and it is within Wikipedia rules, I would recommend that all the previous argumentation be removed and a neutral arbitrator summarize any residual opposing views regarding the "article" and not the "topic" that the article discusses. The participants could then discuss whether they agree with the arbitrator's summary and then resume discussions on the merits of any proposed "article" changes, not the merits of the "topic", or the merits of the "participants" themselves. I hope this contribution is helpful towards resolving the dispute. Sincerely, ThreePD 16:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense, what you say ;-) I made one little change: while Ratcliff might be sincerely convinced that there had been a systematic exclusion of atheists, CARM moderators seem to be as convinced that this has not been the case - in that case, it should not be described as a fact by either party. --Irmgard 18:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting...the families of murdered blacks seem convinced that the KKK is systematically killing blacks but the KKK representatives seem to be as convinced that it isn't the case - I guess it can't be stated as a fact by either party. (Regardless of the evidence)

• You have no evidence. You are linking to an internet discussion board, aarm, that cannot be verified as a reliable source according to wiki guidelines, they are partisan, and an anti-religion website that is not to be used as a sourd, according to guidelines of wiki, unless the link is to discuss themselves, it is a violation of wiki policy. Secondly, the only threats to any persons are on the aarm forums. Are you aware there is support for "pedophiles" on the link to simply being put somewhere and statements that "children should be permitted to consent to sexual activity" and discussions of physically attacking a CARM member on the website that is linked here as aarm. It is hardly a source of reliable opinion. Could you please prove your accusations of KKK like tactics. I can show you such tactics on aarm discussion boards, can you show us any evidence it exists on CARM or is this just more atheist ramblings? The creator of aarm documents 200 or so hits to his boards daily, also documented on his boards. CARM boards realize 30,000-40,000 hits per day. The aarm boards are seeking advertisment for their website by linking here to CARM article against the wiki guidelines. And you talk KKK?Diane S 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have at least one person here who is working on behalf of CARM who has publicly posted on CARM that he would paint CARM in a positive light for Diane and Matt. He also chastised me in a private message for daring to use this discussion page to post a fact showing exactly what CARM is with a direct quote from Matt himself. Since the discussion was about whether or not CARM was important enough to merit more attention than it deserves, the fact that I posted above helped glean light on CARM and the fact that it's a 1 man show with a message board used to beg money from the chatters. Unbiased? Not as long as you have people like the CARM mole pretending to have Wikis best interest at heart when secretly working to ensure a biased article.

• CARM is a non-profit ministry and is certainly entitled to seek funding. How about you show that the aarm creator, a website that is personally owned, charges its members to make them moderators. You want to throw the stones? Let's do it. Are you an aarm poster? Have you paid your money to John Ratcliff?Diane S 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, comparing CARM with the KKK does not give the impression that the writer is unbiased, to put it mildly. --Irmgard 12:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Particularly if there is no documentary evidence that CARM has been systematically murdering atheists ;-). If there is no documented evidence that they have been, then there are still no facts on the matter, just one opinion saying they have been and another saying they haven't been. In that case, I would presume innocence. Furthermore, it appears to me so completely fallacious to cite as a comparison something that is so clearly emotionally charged. That retrospect matter was deemed to be fact by actual historical evidence; the "fact" was not determined by slandering one of the parties of the conflicting opinion at the time, no matter how evil that opposing party was/is. That just amounts to weakly delivered rhetoric no matter how you slice it. So on the credibility scale, the arguer did a disservice to his or her cause on the whole in my opinion. ThreePD 01:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• A guideline, rule and fact that has been ignored in this article since day one, due to the bias of editors of this article is the rule against using blogs, bullentin boards as sources of fact. The article on CARM discusses a situation occuring on an AARM discussion forum, the forum is linked as a source and should not be. They are not reliable sources of fact. It is no wonder that the wikipedia articles are mocked in news. My only experience with wikipedia has been this article on CARM, and the guidelines have not been followed by the editors to this article.

Wikipedia Rule: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

There is absolutely no credible evidence to any of the statements concerning an atheist discussion forums complaints, etc. and CARM ministries forced to respond to such nonsense. Wikipedia directions tell the editors to use "reliable" sources, and that discussion boards are NEVER to be used, never, as a source, and this article has ignored the Wiki guidelines concerning facts, resources. The persons editing this article and adding the ridiculous forums as a source are doing so to advertise their discussion boards. The editors, and administrators have been ignoring the rules for months. The article is being used by a group as propaganda for a discussion board. I am looking right now to the words, VERIFIABLE sources at the bottom of the box, in addition to the Reliable sources guidelines suggesting the aarm links should not EXIST at all, as to NEVER being using and the rules, completely ignored. Whenever attempts made to follow the wiki guidelines by posting the rules, the admin at the time completely disregards the guideline. In fact if you read above, he contradicts himself agreeing discussion boards are not to be linked, not knowing aarm was simply a discussion board and then changes his opinion and did not give a rule or guideline stating that forums can be used as sources. Complete disregard for wikipedia rules. Why are aarm discussion boards sourced here? aarm is not a website, not a paper written by experts, but a chat room linked in an Encyl. article and against the Wiki rules. Below all the other rules violated per link to guidelines. The aarm forums and other websites linked are partisan, personal webpages and never to be used as sources. WHY they are included in this article is more then interesting. Complete and utter disregard for wiki guidelines. Diane S 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia Rule: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Just for the record, the other links, resources and information is also inappropriate and against the guidelines. Basically, the wiki editors of this article, have included internet pages of UNKNOWN persons and linked them as sources, again against the rules...

• "Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal 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.

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.

[edit] Partisan websites

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 — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — 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.

I don't see anywhere that AARM is used as a primary or secondary source about CARM. Rather, a narrative summary of criticism of CARM is given - that, in keeping with NPOV spirit, tells what criticism exists rather than presenting that criticism as fact. The suggestion that the word "AARM" should just be dropped into that narrative without any link that would explain to readers what AARM is runs absolutely contrary to encyclopedic standards. So AARM is presented as a reference - not as a primary or secondary source on a specific claim. Wikipedia policy is not being violated here. --Hyperbole 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Rather, a narrative summary of criticism of CARM is given" and where is the source for the criticism? What proof do you have that such criticism is factual or even exists as legitimate criticism? In an article of any substance, the guidelines above tell you, that you should provide a source, a "reliable" source, documented. Each source you have given falls into partisan, personal websites, discussion boards that are against the rules. This article is simply an editorial with links to discussion boards and personal websites as a source, that the guidelines tell you shouldn't be used as a source. If you cannot provide a source for the information in the article about CARM and criticism, other then the personal websites, blogs or discussion boards as your "source" of criticisms, then you have not proven such criticisms even exist. All you have proven is that there are several personal websites out there attacking a ministry, which all may have been written by YOU personally. Not one of the links posted in this article are documented, reliable, nonpartisan sources. You post on the board you link to Ratcliff's page, suggest there is criticisms and then come here and link "yourself" and friend Ratcliff as reliable sources. Could you please show us where Ratcliff is an expert in the field of apologetics? This article is about equal to a "National Enquirer" gossip page with reference to discussion forums that are parisan, no serious documentation of facts, no reliable or verifiable sources of persons qualified in the field. But a chat room and two personal websites, again, forbidden in the rules are linked. Discussion boards are "NEVER" to be used as sources, personal websites not to be used, a discussion board is linked to Ratcliff to suggest criticisms exist. Diane S 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reporting that the criticism exists, and pointing a reader to that criticism to evaluate for herself, is encyclopedic. It does not hinge on whether the criticism consists of reporting facts, and the article makes no such claim that any criticism consists of the reporting of facts (most of it, obviously, is entirely the reporting of opinion; Ratcliff or anyone else's various credentials do not turn opinion into fact or purported fact). However, it's undisputed fact that disputes with Universalists and Atheists led to the creation of material critical of CARM; I know you're not disputing that, Diane. You were there. And that fact is necessary to an encyclopedic understanding of CARM, which is why mention of those organizations are appropriate in this article. --Hyperbole 22:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Because a person, (that may be "insane") as stated above in guidelines, criticizes a nonprofit organization it is certainly going to be possible for any group to be listed as being criticized by "whacko" groups. Obviously there will be criticism and controversy if any person is known by more than 100 people. Could you tell me what person or organinzation in this world have not been criticized by someone? It is expected that you cannot please all the people all the time. To place such criticism in this article, implying it is wide spread, when it is not, and not documented by a reliable source is poor scholarship and again, no more then a gossip column article. You are linking to a group of troubled chat room users. I gave you the rules and guidelines recommended by wikipedia as to the sources that are to be used.

Listing personal websites and discussion forums are "NEVER" to be used as sources of criticism or as facts. How many times do you have to be told the same thing and read the same rules. Discussion forums are "never" to be used as a source. If the criticism exists then find a credible source to criticize. Not a group of personality disorders on a chat room that hate CARM because they have to obey rules when posting on CARM boards. This is no longer about the link, it has been here for months and the content of antiCARM speaks for itself. What angers me is that editors such as those working on this article are the cause to wikipedia being mocked as just a "soap box" for radicals, propagandist and partisan groups. Those of us working on other such Encyclopedias, that are sincere in wanting factual articles will realize the lack of trust that wikipedia articles are promoting. To link to your discussion forums as a "reliable" source of criticism, a KNOWN partisan discussion group is only making your agenda look obvious. I have heard several times in the last couple of days, the antiCARM forums speak for themselves and anyone with any decency or IQ above 50 can see what it is about and will move on quickly. As I stated above, you are ignoring the guidelines of wikipedia. Considering the latest opinions of wikipedia in the news, I do not see it as a priority to post here. No one believes what they read in wikipedia anyway, however, a letter to the powers that be showing this example, may be worth the effortDiane S 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Partisan websites

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 — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — 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."

• Atheists/Liberal discussion chat rooms should only be linked or sourced for articles discussing other Atheists/Liberal groups, not used to source as criticism of a Christian/Conservative organizationDiane S 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's as ridiculous as saying that the Wikipedia article on Scientology should be written entirely by Scientologists. What you don't seem to understand is that the whole basis of Wikipedian policy on sources is to ensure that information in an article is factual. Here, all sources are being used appropriately, and that can be seen in that you don't actually dispute the factual nature of anything in the article - you just keep ripping uncomplimentary sections of it out and using a weird interpretation of "primary source and secondary source" as your excuse. --Hyperbole 02:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• As usual you don't get it. If a group HATES, are partisan, biased, and anti-Scientologists, they are not to be used as the source for criticism of the Scientologists organizations. Why can you not understand this rule. Would you go to a Nazi website for accurate information or opinions of Jewish people? To gain an accurate criticism of Jewish people or their organizations? Why wouldn't you link the Nazi's to criticize the Jewish organization? You do not post an anti-CARM, hate website as fact to criticisms of CARM. The rule states, the anti-Scientologists writers, if credible, may only be sourced to criticizing OTHER anti-Scientologists to be trusted, IF AT ALL to an unbiased opinion. A Nazi's opinion of groups they hate are not the sources used. If you want a factual, unbiased source as criticism, you use other Christians/Conservative criticisms of CARM or at least a reliable, expert to criticize the CARM website as accurate. You do not go to an anti-CARM or anti-Christian website to find accurate criticism. That IS what the rule states. Obviously, anyone linked to the anti-CARM website is not getting a criticism based on truth but based on their partisan opinions. That is what the rule states, argue with wikipedia, they wrote the rules, do not link or use as sources discussion boards, persons that are not qualified or experts in their field and do NOT link partisan groups for opinions. The rules of wikipedia that have been violated. Tell us what the rule is referring to, if not to this type of situation? Anti-CARM is biased, partisan, a discussion forum and even identifying the posters is impossible. So when wiki tells you the rules, who or what are they referring to? Why do they say NEVER use a discussion board as a reliable source. Diane S 04:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Rules not followed in this article, starting with

"Wikipedia Rule: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence"Diane S 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There are nine references given on this page. Six of them are references to pages on CARM. The other three are aros.net (to establish the proposition that Mormons have responded to CARM); tentmaker (to establish, in conjunction with a CARM site giving an opposing POV, that relations between Universalists and CARM broke down); and kathalon (to establish the proposition that there is theological opposition to CARM). None of these references are bulletin boards or posts to USENET posts. It's difficult to figure out what you're talking about. --Hyperbole 04:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Second rule and guideline violated in this article:
  • Tentmaker is a personal website, kathalon a personal website. Please read the rule as bolded. They may only be used to source on themselves, their personal website. Not used as a source "on topic OTHER than the owner of the website." Tentmaker should only be sourced here for his own personal website information, not for opinions on another person or topic, and katalon the same. Their opinions are not to be trusted as reliable sources, all from wikipedia rules and guidelines being ignored in this article on CARM.

According to Second RULE violated in this article:

"Personal websites as secondary sources Personal 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.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."

• Your sources in this article are discussion boards, NEVER to be used, and personal websites that are NEVER to be used.Diane S 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Will has already ruled that Tentmaker, Kathalon, etc. are valid references to prove their own existence. We've been over this. Tentmaker and Kathalon's specific claims about CARM are not presented at Wikipedia as fact; that would be using them as sources. --Hyperbole 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Based on a reading of [Wikipedia:External_links], it appears that the external links removed by Irmgard were removed erroneously; the policy claims that sources representing multiple POVs *should* be included. I am restoring them to the article, unless there's a valid policy reason not to. --Hyperbole 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Irmgard is an admin and you know the rules and are changing the links. Yes sources that wiki considers reliable sources and not discussion boards or personal websites. You continue to ignore the rules. Yes you may give other POV with RELIABLE sources, RELIABLE,Diane S 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard is actually not an admin on the English Wikipedia site. His status notwithstanding, I've removed the links in the internal article to personal websites, in case someone mistakenly thought they were sources rather than references, and moved them to the external links section. Now, all sources given in this article are CARM sources, and the article falls in compliance with [Wikipedia:External_links]. I think this is the best solution. --Hyperbole 05:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like to much value set on subtitles and numbers of links for evaluating the degree of NPOV.

I removed the "Pro" section, because it lacks real content - Apologetics Index Info on CARM is at least as neutral as the one of COWAN and belongs under neutral information (if you'd go for "inner attitude of the author" Cowan would have to be listed under "Opposing", he's sure no friend of Christian Countercult). And the blog-site does not provide much solid info on CARM - that's too much "having to have a PRO site to make up numbers".

On the other hand, I changed some descriptions on the "Opposing" to show specifically who is speaking why

The actual Pro site is CARM itself, a big site. The opposing sites are actually one forum (much smaller than the one of CARM) and three articles criticizing CARM's treatment of specific subjects - even if link numbers are not equal, it is not an unbalanced list of links. --Irmgard 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources

"Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable."

As stated many times, this article is consistently in violation of wikipedia guidelines and rules on reliable sources.Diane S 23:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy:

"1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Sources Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

....The sources/links that have been added to this article, do violate the wikipedia rules.

....This article, has consistently violated the rules. If I were to open a webpage today, and attack a person,ministry, organization, would wikipedia permit the link to my website? The sources listed in the article, are not within the rules. This article is being used by an "atheist" website as advertisment for their websites, blogs and discussion boards with few members, that are anonymous....Not wikipedia reliable or verifiable sources.Diane S 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

An external link is not a source; if you read WP:EL, you'll find that on articles with multiple points of view, external links representing each point of view should be listed, even if various claims made in that link would not qualify for the article under WP:RS. --Hyperbole 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, and documentation, there is never to be "libelous" information linked, sourced at all, at any time. Are you going to argue with Jim Wales on this? The forums you linked are not to be linked if unreliable sources. The rule does not change for links, you may not link to libelous websites. The POV whether different opinions in a link, still have to be a verifiable, reliable source, if linked or not.Diane S 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, there's never been a finding that anything resembling libel can be found on any of the external links from this article. "Libel" is not a magic word you can invoke to make anything of an opposing POV disappear. --Hyperbole 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, again, you are violating the rules. Links are not to be to blogs, discussion forums, unless self-published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources

"Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources. The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable."

As stated many times, this article is consistently in violation of wikipedia guidelines and rules on reliable sources" How many times are you going to do this? As I said, we are applying to the foundation for consideration here. You are in direct violation of the wikipedia rules, guidelines and linking to "Propaganda" discussion forums. Do you really think you can continue to do this? I suggest that you post here, the guideline and reason for linking to libelous discussion forums of anonymous users. Show us the facts, cite the source on the forums that you link that contribute to the NPOV to this article. If not, we will edit the "libelous" website from this article. And your biased membership of that website, that is documented, the reason you are using this article to advertise and promote an anti-Christian POV. Write here the reason for the link to a insignificant atheist website. Diane S 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're cut-and-pasting from WP:RS again. Nowhere is a personal website or a discussion forum being used as a source - they're being included as external links. WP:RS is not the relevant policy here; instead, you should read the style guide WP:EL for information about which external links are supposed to be included in an article. The reason AARM is included is that it is the most significant proponent of a POV on an article with multiple POVs; WP:EL makes it very plain that such sites should be included. --Hyperbole 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

....Wrong..I just went to your link, now I suggest you do the same, on external links, you are still to use "reliable" sources. Shall we paste the entire page here. You had better read your own sources that you link. You are not permitted to link a website here, whether in links or not in links that libel anyone and are not verifiable sources. If you think I am wrong, go to the admin section and ask, better yet, write to the board of directors. You think we haven't checked. AARM forums are not appropriate in links or are the other personal websites. The links that are of different opinion are to be of "verifiable" sources of opinion whether they are a link or not, external links are still to be verifiable. Do you really think you can link to a porno site here because they disagree with CARM's ministry and suggest it is just an opinion? That is what you are attempting to put into this article, unreliable sources in links for advertisment. This is not the National Enquirer. Now lets do the rules again. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"...that includes the links...Here from your link: "If an article presents multiple points of view, it is useful to provide a link to prominent sites dedicated to each point of view....Please show us that the link you have posted is a prominent site?...Here: "The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." linked from your link: "Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.""While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content." ....Shall we show the libelous and shock content from the forums you are linking to a Christian article on wikipedia? We can keep going? How about advertisment?Diane S 00:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane, you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be. WP:EL says that "If an article presents multiple points of view, it is useful to provide a link to prominent sites dedicated to each point of view." The article on CARM presents multiple POVs, because CARM is subject to criticism. The guide goes on to say that for links normally to be avoided (e.g., links containing factually unverified material or OR), "this list [of links to be avoided] does not override the list of what should be linked." In other words, the most prominent sites critical of CARM should be listed as external links. That is what is being done here. Dozens of Wikipedians have seen the links, including administrators, Calvinists, and Christians; no one except you, with your involvement in the site, thinks they should be removed. That should tell you something. --Hyperbole 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

....No, they have not agreed with you Hyperbole an atheist having editor control and constant reverting of the CARM and Matt Slick article. You are an admitted atheist liberal, as stated in your profile here writing and editing constantly a Christian conservative ministry. There is a political propaganda agenda noted as to what this is about. Others have attempted to fix this article many times in the past to a NPOV, including, Irmgard an administrator, and you have constantly reverted it to your personal bias, linking to a "libelous" website noted for shock purposes and political propaganda. Because those seeking a NPOV in this article are consistently edited by the atheists or liberals, including admins, the article is biased and has long since passed the NPOV. It is your personal propaganda motives noted in reading this talk page as a person in membership of the website you advertise in this article by linking to the discussion forums where you are a member, that is foul in language and absolute libelous attacks on CARM posters. Then looking at the list of the articles in your profile that you, a stated, "liberal, atheist" have an interest in editing, it is Christian articles receiving your attention? Do you really think we are not aware of what is going on? What is the motive for you being here and your interest in editing in this article? You really care that the article concerning CARM ministry and Matt Slick are factual in NPOV? Why? What have you written here that is neutral at all and why would an atheist be editing a Christian ministry article in reverts to his POV?

I ask that you show us other Christian ministry articles in wikipedia with links to disgusting, vile, inappropriate "atheist discussion forums" that were specifically created for the purpose of slandering the members of the CARM administration and all conservative Christians. Please show us all the other Encylopedia articles with links to sources that cannot be verified and other Christian articles that are linked to discussion boards of atheists that are attacking individuals by name? List them here and show us this is the normal procedure that atheists are writing Christian articles and inserting their websites into the Christian articles? I have checked the other Christian leaders, there are no whacko discussion forums with annoymous users listed, but verifiable external links to other prominent groups as per the rules of wikipedia.

Then I want you to list here, the purpose for a Christian internet ministry article being linked to websites with filthy language and personal insults, libel and slanderous material? What does an insignifant group of anonymous atheist, liberal posters have to do with this article? So far, everything you have written in this article has been to criticize, to link to propaganda websites, and then your argument to defend your position on this page that CARM does not have thousands of users. Then why mention your atheist forums with 9 or 10 users on line daily. Can you prove that carm does not have 10,000 or more users? I can prove we do. Then I ask you to show us that the atheist forums you link here are "prominent" opinions of verifiable sources as listed in the rules. AARM has existed for 2 years or so, with 300 or so registered, 9 users at a time on line, and most of those users are the same 50 people, proud to announce their many accounts, with three and four different user names.

The CARM discussion forums have over 10,000 registered users in less then a year, with hundreds of users on line continuously. Now tell us, why you may post the articles of 3 or 4 unpublished, unverifiable bloggers, and a slanderous insignificant discussion forum as appropriate in opinions to a Christian ministry article on wikipedia? I can show you numerous, many wikipedia rules that you are violating as I have done in the past, and the editors in this continue to ignore or be reverted by those choosing to ignore the rules and guidelines. Including the external link rule. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."...As far as I am concerned, your links could be you and two friends or anyone writing website discussion boards with anonymous names and linking them here, they are to be verifiable sources. I will continue to apply the NPOV, reliable sources, yes including external links, and edit this article for libelous attacks linked by editors, as instructed by Jim to removing them immediately, until we hear from the foundation on what will be done with the group of "atheist" liberals that are editing this article as propaganda and advertisment for a propaganda website. Again, this is a matter of record, that the objection to the violation of the guidelines is posted on this discussion page. We have no problem with opposite opinions by "verifiable" sources and links. Diane S 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're no doubt aware that "libel" is a legal term, and your constant accusations of libel violate Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. No one who has reviewed this article - administrators included - has reached anything resembling a conclusion that representing verifiable criticism of CARM (as policies insist that we do) is tantamount to libel. Accusing others of bias in editing isn't particularly meaningful when you are the administrator of the site in question. --Hyperbole 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down for a moment, Diane. Most, if not all, of the issues you are now raising have already been settled to the satisfaction of the various editors involved in this article. I think Hyperbole has done an admirable job in making concessions and trying to work with other Christian editors such as Flex and myself.Urbie 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Libel is not only a legal term, it is a term for written defamation and slander that is published, that includes the internet. The various editors of this article partipate on a propaganda website that libels Christians of the CARM ministry and are using this article for their own personal agenda as admitted by one of the editors as to the purpose for linking it. Wikipedia is clear that "libelous" information is to be removed immediately, not a legal threat, but part of the rules. How can one remove "libelous" information if they must first have a "court" decide what is libel. Jim Wales is clear in his instructions..... Please show me where I mentioned any legal threat? Are you threatening legal action should we edit out libelous websites/blogs from this article?

Any person that is linked to the websites posted here, has been linked to propaganda and "libelous" material, which is not permitted, unless you can provide a "verifiable" source, the websites/blogs are not "reliable" sources. A link to a blog is not a verifiable source. I am not the administrator of CARM ministry, I administrate the discussion forums only, not the ministry. One does not have to do with this article. Secondly, liberal propaganda websites are not permitted in the rules especially when two of the editors are linking to their propaganda website for advertisment and propaganda purposes. It is not a NPOV when the editors, having a different political view, are linking to their blogs/discussion forums. One more time, we have reported this to the foundation, a liberal propaganda group attempting to use a wikipedia article for their personal gain, is reported. If I were to start a blog, addressing the posters on the linked website, would that also be linked here?Diane S 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)