Talk:The Way of the Master

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
MessengerAtLWU, Homestarmy
To-do list for The Way of the Master: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Split off the following sections into seperate pages, and reduce them to single paragraphs:
  2. Speaking of criticisms, we should take each of the criticisms leveled on Nightline a while back (I've got it on VCR) and find sources to expand out on. A Google search on WOTM or Ray could find some other pages as well.
  3. Expand the article on The Great News Network, and attempt to expand Todd Friel.
  4. Finally, turn this all into a series on WOTM, etc. See below for a link to some proposed templates.
  5. Get a peer review once we get started, esp. re: Todd.
  6. Finally, nominate this WOTM "base article" for featured article status, and possibly Ray's and Kirk's as well.

Contents

[edit] "Controversy"

I'll say here what I said with respect to a "controversy" mentioned in the seperate bio article about Ray: What controversy is there for real? Outside of here, I've not heard of anything online in blogs, the news, or "old school" media about a "controversy" regarding the interview segments or theology like we have heard about, for example, Pat Robertson's antics. I don't want to offend anyone, but from where I'm sitting, this section is merely a way for someone to vent about something they don't like, and so I've deleted it yet again. Anyone who does agree that there is a controversy, please feel free to respond. Bring your hard evidence and links to articles about this "controversy," and leave your POVs at the door.

Not only that, but their "interviews" is not ambushing. They have a book all about the behind the scenes aspects of the show, and they specifically say that nearly all people being interviewed have had the process and program described to them, and they sign a waiver agreeing to do the interview. I don't have the book or quote readily available at the moment (I'll try to post the quote later), but it definitely does not indicate an "ambush," but instead a relatively in-depth process.

There have only been two instances that I can think of (and I've seen all the episodes) of people being filmed without their knowledge, and in both instances, their faces have been blurred out. One was in their pilot episode when Comfort gives three guys money and leads into his presentation while Kirk watches and provides commentary from a distance. The other was in "When Things Go Wrong," where Comfort tries to give tracts to a group of people in Canada, but accidentally walks into the middle of a drug deal (no, really). --MessengerAtLWU 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy is probably the wrong word to use, at least without evidence anyway, however having seen some episodes the basics are correct. If anyone disagrees with its phrasing feel free to edit it up to a NPOV, but blind reverting is not a good editing technique. I also added my own little paragraph, and played around with the position of the other paragraphs. I’ve never been any good at writing so let the editing begin! Gerard Foley 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gerald, I've continued fixing as best I can. Even though I agree with Kirk and Ray, I feel we should let the "Criticisms" section stand, with heavy watching for NPOV. Thanks y'all! --MessengerAtLWU 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The Controversy section does need to be cleaned a little. I don't really know how to accomplish that since I'm new here, but hopefully one of you guys can do it properly. Citations would help if someone can find them aswell. =/ Keero 23:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keero, the main problem is that this IP address who is making/adding to the Criticism section is conducting original research (OR), and it seems he/she does not want to sit down and talk on the talk pages. The only article they've edited is this one and Fraggle Rock. /:-| I'm in college and getting ready for exams next wee, so I don't have the time to sit back and work on it, but Homestarmy and I seem to be pretty much the only folks who regularly edit the articles on WOTM and Ray Comfort. --MessengerAtLWU 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merriam-Webster Definition of "Discussion"

Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n Function: noun 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate 2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

(The formal/informal distinction is not stated.)

The point being is that this area is for "Discussion." It is understandable and expected to delete unjustified remarks in the actual article, but to censor someone else’s opinion because it's something one doesn't like is to negate the possibility of any counter argument, cited or not. This does not apply necessarily to this 'controversy', of which I know nothing about. From where I am sitting, the above statement seems like a whitewash to any form of differing opinion, true or not.

Are you talking to me or to the person who posted that definition? I don't want to just brush any and all opinions aside. If there is a public controversy, I would like to know about it. --MessengerAtLWU 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC

[edit] In Question: "Evidence"

The above comment seems somewhat inconsistent. It demands "hard evidence" for claims made in response to this article, yet it fails to do exactly that. This should be self-evident.

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

[edit] Reality Break

Isn't that part of the show where they interview people on the street called "Reality Break"? Perhaps that paragraph can go under a level 3 heading. Gerard Foley 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it counts as a "filler" segment, so I'll mention it there. --MessengerAtLWU 13:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, he was specific this time

Ehrm, i'm going to take a shot at NPOVing all of that and seeing if I can think about ways the Way of the Master episodes could arguably not fall under the categories of all those fallacies so there's more than one side, but the problem is both sides here are compleatly original reaserch. (The links illustrate concepts that Wikipedia itself already covers, but don't appear to specifically address the show) Any ideas? We could just call their radio show and ask them point blank about all the accusations :D Homestarmy 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If I get a minute this weekend, I'll see what I can do about NPOVing it. We could also ask an administrator to take a look at it. --MessengerAtLWU 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue is trying to get both sides, I don't think there's anything on any of the Way of the Master sites anywhere that responds to these exact objections. Of course, what the anon put in now might not even be a side since it seems to be OR.... Homestarmy 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Changes

Hey guys (though more often than not it's just me and Homestarmy). I've noticed that the article's getting pretty long, and as such I've got some ideas:

  • Splitting off the principle, TV show, radio show, and criticism into seperate articles, with only a paragraph for each in this article itself. As much as I hate to say it, we could (and perhaps should, in the interest of NPOV do a little digging and add some more sourced material to the criticism section.
  • I hope to soon unstubify the GNN article.
  • Eventually, this would lead to a whole series, complete with its own series box, which I'm currently working on User:MessengerAtLWU/WOTMTemplate.

Please let me know what y'all think! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, im my opinion, its not long until it starts complaining about page length when you start editing the page :). The thing about splits, is that the content your splitting off ordinarily needs enough material to make a non-stub in it's own right or it probably isn't worth it, like the critism section here, since somebody nuked it for us, there's only like 3 lines :/. Verifiable lines in a way, but still just 3 lines heh. I seem to remember something around the Dan Barker debate where Todd was talking about Atheist bloggers going on about how his speech was "evil", (alas, the irony) but blogs aren't ordinarily good sources for wikipedia unless the article is about blogs, and i've never heard of any other critism besides that. The evolution episode is probably the easiest thing you could find controversy for over, because i've been around the block a few times on Talk:Evolution, and the evolution episode, sadly, wasn't quite correct about a few things. But unless we find some outside (Non-wikipedia) source for critism of the episode, there isn't much to do there that isn't just OR. I like your plan though, its just im not sure if enough content is here quite yet for more articles :/. And we still need references for this article, like in a real references section, I could start referencing the study guide or the Evidence Bible if need be because I keep them in my backpack every day..... Homestarmy 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, trust me. A quick Google search on WOTM, HBKS, Ray, Kirk, etc., will find a lot, albeit usually deep down. People twisting the parachute analogy and saying that The Ten Commandments aren't really what are meant in Psalm 19:7, folks who say that because Ray believes in eternal security he's advocating a license to sin, blogs that decry his "porn star mustache," you get the point. Christianbook.com did an interview of Ray a while back that went through some rather probing questions. I'll have to do a little digging, I think some of 'em are in my bookmarks.
As to the rest, I'm certain it can be made into full articles, esp. the TV show, and perhaps even the training courses. Adding something like a list of segments to the radio show portion would definitely make it long enough.
BTW, have you considered joining GNN or SOBE? All your work and witnessing here is excellent. Just curious. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if you can dig up the critisisms that aren't compleatly bloggy or personal-website-esque, that might be enough for a separate article I suppose. If we need help, I could always call on the group of christian cabal members friends i've met so far on Wikipedia, they might be willing to lend a hand, though we are still working a good deal on Jesus and many other assorted articles. (It's coming together quite nicely, I think the only thing we really need now is more on how the early romans and jews changed how Jesus's teachings were seen as and whatnot.) And i'd join the GNN but the only leader I saw for Georgia was in Atlanta and im many miles north of there :(. It's somewhat ironic, because up north in the mountains there's churches everywhere and evangelistic signages, but im in between the mountains and Atlanta and am too far away :(. Homestarmy 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Bah, you don't need to be near a leader. Plus, there's leaders now in Athens, Augusta, and Lexington (though only the Athens one is on the main map right now. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Err, maybe not

Somebody seems to of hacked that website as I gather from the satirical content about the "Devil's beatitudes", and the www.wotmradio.com site seems either down or the hackers disabled it I supposed. I think that deserves an honorable mention.Homestarmy 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, that list probably IS something that one would hope we would hate, maybe nothing bad happened :/. Homestarmy 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's up now, so that's good. :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

--(below moved from my talk page Clinkophonist 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))--

Hey, just curious why all the boxes were put on those pages. I would be interested in hearing your reasons why on the appropriate talk pages. Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious. The importance template is there because they do not assert their importance, i.e. why they should have an article. They should be merged because they do not appear to be important in their own right, i.e. not important enough to have their own articles. I can see why a criminal investigation involving millions of pounds and forgery would be important, but I don't see why the suspected criminal's next door neighbour's cat deserves its own article. Clinkophonist 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would've hoped you would talk about it with myself and Homestarmy, who have honestly done 80%+ of the work on those articles. I appreciate being bold (it's why I started the initial WOTM article before I even had a username!), but I felt that you coming along as a "lone gunmen" (running in, adding those tags, and leaving without discussion) was a bit unusual. I saw "It has been suggested that XYZ be merged into this article or section," and thought, "Where? When? No one's said anything about it, and there were no serious objections when I split the article up six weeks ago. All I see is another editor sticking those boxes onto the pages!" There's a reason those tags tell us to discuss these things. ;-)
Initally I split 'em up because with fifty gazillion different ministry branches/programs, the WOTM article was getting messy, esp. the contents box. I definitely feel that keeping LW and WOTM split is the right choice, as they are seperate "brand names" and pretty much all of Kirk's content (save a few things archived from '02 and '03) is focused on WOTM-side.
On a similar note, why did you put the POV tag on Ray Comfort? (I've always felt that the tag was a bit redundant; if it's POV, be bold and un-POV it! :-P) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The "it has been suggested that XYZ be merged...." refers to the fact that someone has added the tag. That is the act of suggestion - the adding of the tag. It's not unusual to leave tags - many people do it - its only when the tag is disputed that discussion appears on the talk page. The tags do not tell people to discuss things. They ask people who dispute the tags to start discussion rather than enter into an edit war by removing the tags. The tags do not require undisputed tags to be discussed. Clinkophonist 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I will maybe get round to revisiting Ray Comfort and un-POVing it if I get time, but the tag exists to warn other people. If no-one does anything to the article within 2 weeks then I won't object if you remove the tag. Clinkophonist 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Also curious why you thought it was POV. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Because its extremely selective about what it includes about him. There is zero criticism of him; this is unlikely for notable figures in the Creation/Evolution issue, so I am forced to conclude that either he isn't notable (and therefore the article should be deleted) or that the article is POV. Clinkophonist 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of that is in the WOTM article, although a link would be appropriate. Some equity has recently been introduced when someone (I forget who) posted Comfort's conceding a major point in his argument for creationism. Maher has not responded (to my knowledge) to his request for a debate, and his debate with Ron Barrier in 2001 has been documented on the article as well (though his response to Comfort is in order). While it may not be enough, it is a start. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Straw men are not enough to justify removing the POV tag. Clinkophonist 13:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It took me a bit to find this conversation, i've been away a couple days, can we please take this to the article talk pages? :/ Homestarmy 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--(above moved from my talk page Clinkophonist 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))--

Ok then, Messenger, you said there on the to-do list that you have a tape of the nightline interview and saw some criticisms there, would it be enough to make a good paragraph or two? Homestarmy 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably, yeah. I'll have to get that up there. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well once we do that, i'd say its just a matter of finding references for all those other split articles, especially maybe a couple references that aren't all from the ministry website heh. Homestarmy 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added a little bit; the segment was so short, I didn't add too much to it. You wanna try to wikify the evolution bit? Just trying to skim it, it looks pretty messy. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing about that entire spiel is that its almost compleatly OR, even if I wikifyed it, it would probably just get deleted later on :/. Homestarmy 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticm section WAY to long

What's up with the Criticsm section being twice as long as the main content? It seems way way out of proportion and is not what you see in bound enyclopedias. How about reducing the criticism to the major bullets or linking to other pages that discuss a competing philosophy.

The problem is it has no sources for any of it and as far as I can tell was just one anonymous editor putting in their own, personal criticisms, so im not entirely certain what can be done for it :/. Homestarmy 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The "anonymous" editor included more material than was necessary in the criticism section, so I left the basic information, and purged the rest. The basic info being what specific criticisms have been made, definitions of some of the terms, and an example for each one. The rest I believe to be superfluous.Jlujan69 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the criticism section, I changed "circumnavigating the conscience" to "circumventing the intellect". What Comfort and Cameron have said several times in their show is that the Way of the Master is a way to appeal to the conscience directly by "doing an end run around the intellect".Jlujan69 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable for the criticism section to be twice as long as the remainder of the content, iff this is how things are in the real world - if the criticism is far more notable, in the real world, than the positive features (i.e. if WOTM is notable for being criticised). Clinkophonist 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
That's just it, as far as I know, most of this section is nothing more than a single anon's critique of all this, hardly notable :/. Homestarmy 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added information in criticism section

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

[edit] Suggested additions

This ministry has spawned a huge underground "one to one" and "open air" witnessing movement. All over the world, people are passing out living waters tracts, starting conversations with strangers and standing up in public doing open air preaching. I think a description of these two activities, and their distinctions would be appropriate. Also a mention of some of the more prolific examples of street preachers and witnessers inspired by this ministy (myself not the least of them). I have run into people in real life and in the blogosphere all over who are doing this very thing. -Dru Morgan http://theheavenlyhost.blogspot.com


Also, Francis Chan, of http://www.cornerstonesimi.com has produced a film http://www.juststopandthink.com "Just Stop and Think" that presents this same gospel presentation in a unique way. If Francis and this film don't deserve their own wikipage, then at the very least, they should be referenced here. -Dru Morgan

[edit] Explicit mention of WDJD in second Left Behind movie

When I watched Left Behind II: Tribulation Force, I did so for the purpose of laughing my ass off with a couple of friends. And, sure enough, I wasn't disappointed, when Cameron (excuse me, I mean Cameron's "charakter") actually starts confronting another character with his painfully repetitive "Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?" routine. That seemed to me to be a remarkable (albeit hilarious) creak of the charakter, and I believe that it deserves some mention here. After all, the direct inclusion in a (somewhat) major filme gives the principle somewhat more of a fame. Maybe somebody who isn't as biased as me will want to write that in somewhere. That's it, I'll leave now. Tihi. — Mütze 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous by their standards nobody would get into heaven, you could never "want" or even "need" something. 70.162.43.130 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could cite it at the bottom and add in a line about it I suppose. But, to 70.162.43.130, the entire point is that nobody can get to heaven alone because the standard is too high and that that's why everyone needs Jesus. It would be pretty silly to expect people to want to be saved if nobody really needed to be saved, Jesus certainly wouldn't of needed to die for us then, and in fact, if humans had the ability to be saved by successfully adhering to perfect standards, Jesus wouldn't even technically of needed to exist. Homestarmy 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument from design

The following paragraph:

Cameron and Comfort use what some describe as flawed or misleading arguments to prove the existence of God, or their discussions with the general public may be more colloquial than strictly scientific ... some say that this does not technically qualify as actual proof of a painter or a builder, following David Hume, who pointed out that one only knows from experience that paintings have painters and buildings have builders, but not that universes have creators.

reads as original research/criticism by the author. At least one citation should be given here, especially if the encyclopedist is audacious enough to point back to Hume, or refer to the hosts as "misleading" per WP:LIVING. I'm going to condense it. Leon 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Way_of_the_Master_de80.html"