Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Continued abuse

I discovered irrefutable evidence that Diane Sellner was once again using sockpuppets in blatant violation of her ban from editing the Wikipedia. Essentially all the pro-CARM comments were from definite sockpuppets or meat puppets. The only account I am unsure about is "Interested Party", though even that account was engaging in trolling. Wikipedia policy when discovering that a user set up abusive sockpuppets to get around a ban is to remove all contributions by that sockpuppet. Instead, I archived the comments to /Archive 3. This includes comments made by people who are not sockpuppets, and perhaps includes comments made before the ban. As such, most, though not all, of the comments in Archive 3 should be ignored. It stuns me that this editor continues blatantly violating Wikipedia policy as well as attempting to misdirect other editors as to the nature of the statements made. That said, there is no evidence that Matt Slick is directly or indirectly involved in this abuse, only Diane Sellner. However, Sellner is a Vice President at CARM. Unfortunately, due to this chronic abuse, any future pro-CARM statements made here must be looked on with suspicion. This is sad as it makes it harder to achieve a neutral article. --Yamla 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested Party has been blocked indefinitely for trolling. An administrator previously determined this account was a sockpuppet of a known sockpuppet of Sellner's. Additionally, she has threatened that Sellner will continue to violate the ban placed on her account for her violation of WP:LEGAL by using abusive sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I will no longer have any tolerance for these continued attacks. --Yamla 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You have my sympathy, Yamla. What has been displayed here in recent days is astounding. Their determined underhandedness - and taunting - has completely undermined their credibility for me. Perhaps once the merger is complete you can lock it up for a couple years. ZincOrbie 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited article

Included the updated numbers on forums and a bit more explanation to Ratcliff. He does admit trolling and tantalizing Christians on carm so included that info. It is sourced to his own words that are linked to the aarm chat boards that have still not been removed. Interested Party 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge draft

Reminder, there's work being done on a replacement for this article at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Mergedraft. --Yamla 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I added my contribution to the article: I made half a dozen non-controversial improvements, but also added back the section about controversy on CARM's forums. It seems to me that the information is sourced, relevant, and notable in the context of the article, and there's no reason it shouldn't be there. --Hyperbole 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it notable that Slick has composed poems?

Upon discovering that the CARM website features a section devoted to Matt Slick's poems, I thought that this should be noted under the section of the wikipedia article devoted to Slick's writings. I was told that this is not notable, but am having difficulty seeing why it wouldn't be. What does everyone think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hearsayheresy (talk • contribs) .

An easy test of whether something is notable is to see if anyone has noted it. Have Slick's poems been published by unrelated publishers? Have they been reviewed or mentioned by poetry journals? Any other references to them? -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism regarding Calvinism re-added

I have re-added my statements about Matt's belief in Reformed theology. I have, however, edited them to meet NPOV, as I agree they did not when I first posted them. If anyone has a problem with the current wording, please edit it to your heart's content, or discuss the changes here. Previously my changes were reverted entirely, a misjudgement in my opinion (obviously, considering I was the author :-) . --Mister Magotchi 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The current text reads:
Matt Slick's particular view of Christianity is markedly Reformed or Calvinist. Calvinism in the United States is not the predominant school of thought among evangelical Christians. Slick therefore separates the bulk of his Calvinist-specfic writings from CARM, instead keeping them on another CARM-like website, The Calvinist Corner. This may be seen as an attempt at maintaining an image of mainstream Christianity while espousing some noteworthy doctrinal viewpoints that the majority of Christians do not agree with.
First, this paragraph makes it seem like Calvinism is on the fringe of Christianity. Historically speaking, it is quite important to the development of Protestantism in general and to Christianity in America in particular. There have been a number of important (even titanic) figures who were Calvinists (e.g., Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Karl Barth, Thomas Torrance, Francis Schaeffer, etc.), and presently, there are many well-respected, mainstream evangelical pastors and theologians who are ardent Calvinists (e.g., J. I. Packer, Alister McGrath, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John F. MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D. James Kennedy, and many others in Category:Calvinists and Category:Reformed theologians). Moreover, while I fully agree that Calvinism is not currently the majority report among Christians (though it is on the rise, cf. this article from Christianity Today), it is not the view of a small or tiny minority either, as Mister Magotchi's out-of-the-mainstream wording implies. The numbers of the Reformed churches and the Reformed seminaries (e.g., Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, etc.) prove as much.
Second, this paragraph seems like original research and attributing motives, particularly the last sentence. If we reduced it to something we could keep, I don't think it would belong in the criticism section anymore because it would basically say something like (not polished): "Matt Slick is a Calvinist, but because CARM primarily exists to talk about cults not the fine points of soteriology, he maintains a separate website called 'The Calvinist Corner.'" Thus, I propose we redact the paragraph in question to something like this sentence and move it out of the criticism section, or we just delete it entirely under WP:OR and WP:NPOV (which is what I did last time, when the wording was hardly any different). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion (or idea) how prominent Calvinism is within Christianity, but the paragraph as it stands is unacceptable original research - it ascribes motives for separating CARM and the Calvinist Corner without any citation or even possibility of citation. It's just a theory of the author. I'm going to take a swing at changing it... --Hyperbole 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I had to remove it. It's just all OR. Magotchi, if you can find a reliable source - like a ministry somewhere that formally accuses Slick of whitewashing his Calvinist leanings on CARM - we can add that. But we can't have unsourced theories in the article. --Hyperbole 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Can we at least just say that Matt Slick is Calvinist/Reformed and base it on the source of mslick.com ? I apologize for not being as careful as I should be when it comes to NPOV and OR. I haven't really done a lot of editing in general. I still hold that you guys totally ripping my additions is not NPOV either, but I would be happy with the compromise of at least advertising that he's Calvinist and giving links relating to the subject. A knowedge of CARM and Matt Slick without the knowledge that he's Calvinist is nowhere near a complete knowledge. I know him personally. Some form of the word "sovereignty" comes out of his mouth about once in 50 words (OR and exaggeration, sorry, lol). --Mister Magotchi 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Flex (talk|contribs) 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it.--Mister Magotchi 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CARM as a reliable source

Is CARM itself a reliable source for citation in other articles? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CARM is a reliable source for statements they make. So, it would be reasonable to say, "CARM says 'ducks can fly'" along with a citation on their web site. This is not sufficient to source the claim, "ducks can fly", however. As to a claim like "AARM claims ducks like elephants", CARM cannot serve as a reliable source for that claim. If, however, CARM has an article which states something about another group, the sources CARM itself uses may prove to be reliable enough for use on the Wikipedia. If I have not cleared this up sufficiently, please contact me on my talk page or through email. --Yamla 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moderator incident

I've readded the paragraph on the argument that happened between the moderators, because i think it's important to note the critiscm that many people having been saying against carm. It's becoming a "yes, whatever you want Slick" place according to some moderators and friends. I don't think the paragraph is in perfect wikipedia format, so feel free to edit it. The original paragraph looks like this:

In 2007, a dispute occurred between the members of CARM chat, resulting in some moderators and normal members being banned, and the ministry becoming more inclined to agree with Slick on any issue. The problem apparently began when a moderator known as 'Thomas' was interrupted by another member 'Eric_landstrom' (an Armenian), during an explanation on a theological issue, resulting in a debate violating Slick's rules on moderator's behaviour. After 'Eric_landstrom' threatened to ban 'Thomas', 'Thomas' left. Later on that night, a similar dispute occured on a grander scale involving many regular members and moderators; 'Javy', 'Simply_Nikki', 'Dave-Das', 'Julie', 'Andrew', who were among the group, argued with CARM's vice president, Diana, resulting in many of the group being banned. Many of the remaining then left CARM in protest, such as 'Reformed_Baptist'. Matt Slick, having heard about several theological debates for a while, renamed all the moderators in the format of "ModeratorNumber", to help prevent moderators from communicating with each other, and so help prevent disputes. Moderators' status in the chatroom where also made invisible. One moderator, who would wish to remain anonymous, said that she had become a "yes-um" person, due to Slick "tightening" the ministry."

the Truth seeker 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Forum drama does not belong here. Especially copyright violation forum drama. From "islamhope.net". Whatever that is. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] status of the merge draft?

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Mergedraft still exists but seems to be mainly dormant. Is it still a draft of anything, or should it be deleted or moved out of article space (e.g. to someone's user space)? --Delirium 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the main article was replaced with the mergedraft several months ago (perhaps a year ago) and no one actually got around to deleting the mergedraft. Someone should probably do that, since it's just leftover cruft at this point. --Hyperbole 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)