Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Potter's House Christian Fellowship article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

Archives
1 2 3

Contents 1 Advice 2 Citations needed 2.1 Current church statistics 2.2 Church activity 2.3 Church history 2.4 Church conferences 3 'Criticism of the church' section 4 Headline text 5 Statements of fact versus statements of opinion 6 Advance warning 7 Citations 8 Rick Ross 9 The Ross Links 10 minor change 11 Disputed Sentence 12 Mediation 13 Mitchell Links 14 Could we discuss the "Guardian of the Truth or Garner of Attention?" Web Site... 15 Rick Ross web Sites 16 Cracked Pots and Life after Potter's House web site 17 Links 18 Compromise 19 Disputed Sentence 20 Suggested Compromise 21 Criticism of the church 22 Potters_House author uses his own sites 23 Disputed sentances and references links 24 User:Potters House has inserted false information 24.1 Clarification 25 Reliable third party sources 26 IP scams and internet accusations are irrelevant to Potters House 27 Protected 28 Third party 29 Links vandelism and church doctrine 30 Church directory 31 External link replaced 32 Please explain?? 33 Biased external links 34 Equipt.org Critics section 35 Firstplumbline 36 Conferences 36.1 Unsourced content 37 Nick Sayers - Banned user Potter's House, Sapienz and Special:Contributions - 218.214.37.212

[edit] Advice

Please read this page before contributing.

[edit] Citations needed

As you can see, the page contains many 'citation needed' warnings. I placed them there several months ago (I believe). I will go over them one more time and then delete them unless they are substantiated (as per Wikipedias verifiability policy i.e. 'Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed'.)

[edit] Current church statistics

Please cite the source of these statistics. 'Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' The source should be a credible third party, not simply the CFM or an adherents website. If this cannot be done, then it will have be changed from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion, and the source of the opinion cited. If neither can be found, the section should be deleted.

[edit] Church activity

"While the Potter's House welcomes those from other churches, it does not actively participate in proselytising, but rather in conversion of non-believers." Can the author of this statement please clarify it? What does 'non-believer' mean? It could mean atheist, non-Christian, non-Protestant, non-Pentacostal or even non-Potters House members. And please cite a source for this particular policy. As above, if it can't be verified as it stands, it could be changed into an opinion and a source of the opinion cited. If neither can be done, it should be deleted.

[edit] Church history

As above. Please back up these claims with some kind of reference. Is there a book where these claims are made? I'm sure they weren't just made up, so where did they come from?

[edit] Church conferences

As above. These figures were acquired somewhere. Where are they from?

Clearly, the article has relied upon a lot of unverified material. Unfortunately the article will be a lot shorter if these claims cannont be backed up with "credible, third-party" sources.

--GuyIncognito 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Criticism of the church' section

This part seems to be the most edited and recent additions are from a pro-Potters House POV. Links have been deleted, and the alternative viewpoint either removed or 'rebutted'.

The link to the CRI article has been removed. I am adding it again. I'm also altering the text to replace the previous amendment which said "The Christian Research Institute gives a more measured criticism of the organization but has Ross as a main reference." Firstly, the CRI article does not reference Rick Ross as all. Secondly, it is the most professional and measured critique of the Potters House that can be found, and by a respected organisation. It looks really bad for pro-Potters House editors to remove it or attempt to 'spin' it in a negative way. For 218.214.37.212 I particularly recommend re-reading the Wikipedia NPOV policy which includes the statement: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted."

For 218.214.37.212 and Jlujan69: The criticisms section originally was four lines representing the claims of the 'critics' and four lines representing the views or the 'defenders' of the Potters House. After your collective editing, it now has three lines for the critics, and nine lines defending the Potters House. The point of this section is to fairly present all conflicting points of view. These additions have turned the section into a mini-debate, with additions that seem to have the single purpose of 'rebutting' the critics claims. Again, reference to the NPOV policy is instructive: 'Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." At present, that is not occurring. If we present all competing views fairly, readers are then equipped to decide for themselves which side to believe. Deleting the views of those opposed to the Potters House, simply because they are considered 'biased', prevents readers from doing that.

--GuyIncognito 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

You stated:

Firstly, the CRI article does not reference Rick Ross as all. This is a half truth, please re read it.

But the article itself says: NEGATIVE REPORTS BY EX-MEMBERS AND OTHERS -- Since our preliminary report of March 3, 1988, new developments have occurred which should be included in this report. In September of this year, the "Geraldo Television Show" did a segment which included an expose' of the Potter's House in which '"exit-counselor" 'Rick Ross'' alleged that the Potter's House was cultic and dangerous. Others, many ex-members, allege that the leadership exercises strong control over its members (a form of the shepherding doctrine); that leaving the church would result in the judgment of God; that members are ostracized from their families; that tithing is essential to be in proper or right relationship with God and strongly enforced by the leadership; that women attending the Potter's House are subjugated; and that ex-members are shunned or hated and considered lost until they come back to the Potter's House. While many of these allegations came from ex-members in the Prescott area, some have come from other parts of the country which indicates that there may be some truth to the allegations at least with some Potter's Houses.

The information originated from Ross, this is clear!

I think that the CRI article is fine and I am not sure if it was deleted by accident. At least they are credible! I would prefer that over the link to escape from the fellowship, which we have discussed in depth before that this person has a website pretending to be me saying I am a homo etc...(are we going through this again?)

I replaced the former 'Criticism of the church' section until you revise your views about Rick Ross and the CRI article and understand that Ken Haining has a web site that pretends to be me saying all sorts of untrue things, thus proving he is not credible (are we going through this again?).

I have added the link to a new page www.waymanmitchell.com which has links to books written by Mitchell and others about the Potter's House which would help also with the citations.

Also I can't understand why those "neutral" people at Rick Ross' Wikipedia article won't allow 2 links to be placed on the criticism links, but they are always deleted. I think if you are going to put links to people with no credibility who are proven to be liars, deceivers, etc, who run a site pretending to be me - then the same must apply to Rick Ross' article, or else this is religious discrimination. Until this problem is fixed I think this site should remain the same. I will place an article on my site www.pottersclub.com that will answer CRI's claims.

Nick

www.pottershouse.com.au

Thanks for your reply. Thanks for pointing out the CRI quote. As far as the CRI article goes, I read the relevant section (quoted above) as making (at least) two claims: one is that Rick Ross claims that the Potters House is "cultic and dangerous", and the other is that "others" allege "mind control" etc. I don't see anything to suggest that Ross is the source of information. It sounds like they are paraphrasing actual testimonies. They are not even claiming that what Ross or what the others are saying is true - they are simply saying that claims have been made. If Ross is as bad as you say (and I tend to agree that he is a sensationalist) then critically minded readers are sure to reject his claims. It's not up to us to prevent them from seeing what this guy has claimed and thus preventing them from assessing it for themselves.

Again, with Ken Haining's site, I know that this guy has made unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims. I don't consider him have a very pleasant personality. But it's not up to us to determine whether he is telling the truth or not. Surely the readers can look to his claims and decide that for themselves? I only cite the guy to show that this individual has made certain claims, not that those claims are true. I cite the pro-Potters House ones for the same reason.

Perhaps you should report the relevant site(s) that is(are) making slanderous accusations against you to Yahoo (or others) and have them delete it(them)?

And if you believe that your additions to Ross's article are relevant, appropriated nuanced, etc and have been deleted because of your religious beliefs, then perhaps you should get an Admin to intervene. There are a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms available and I encourage you to use them.

--GuyIncognito 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The potters house people here say they do not sin, but violate laws. They try to teach religion outside of our schools, they say something is happening here, and when you get there they will lock you in and preach to you... Think about that. 24.117.234.228 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Some small town "satan worshiper"

[edit] Statements of fact versus statements of opinion

"A group known as "Slam The Door" claimed to be "survivors" of the Potter's House. It was shown that they had assumed multiple identities on their site, giving the impression of more allegations of abuse than there really were."

The aforementioned statement is a recent addition to the 'criticism of the church' section. I realise that this is the conclusion that has been drawn by a number of Potters House advocates. I also believe that such an opinion is not unreasonable in the circumstances. But I also believe that there are several other alternative viewpoints. So I do not think it is appropriate to claim that anything was "shown" to be the case. It has merely been claimed to be the case, in this instance, by the editor Jlujan69. Do you not see the distinction between something that is commonly agreed upon, such as the statment that several Potters House advocates have made a set of claims, and something that is not commonly agreed upon, that the claims are in fact true?

Ok. I changed the entry to reflect something more neutral, I believe.Jlujan69 23:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"For example, on several of the sites, the same letters are posted and the sites tend to reference each other. This suggests the same people are posting on multiple sites. "

I'm not totally sure what this is meant to mean. Does it mean that people have sent the same letters in to multiple sites? Have they done so under alternate names? It's just that based on the way I've interpreted the statement above, it doesn't appear to allege anything inappropriate. Aren't people allowed to post on multiple sites? Isn't it only inappropriate if they claim to be different people? And is it wrong to reference each other, particularly when they all claim to be 'victims' of a common experience? To me the claim seems a bit to ambiguous in its current form.

--GuyIncognito 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that someone reading about PH on these various sites may read the same letter not realizing it, and come away with an inaccurate conclusion that there are more allegations of abuse in PH than there really are. As far as these groups citing one another goes, I just wish I could see more original research done by them instead of simply "regurgitating" the same information and allegations. If I were to set up an informational website and quote your website and very little of anything else, then what have I really accomplished? All I've done is re-post what you've already said.Jlujan69 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'll just slightly change the recent addition you made to break it into two paragraphs, but won't substantially change the content. --GuyIncognito 03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advance warning

I intend to delete every line that contains a 'citation needed' warning after it. I am warning in advance, because editors have had several months to add relevant sources but have not done so. Perhaps Nick or Jlujan69 could leave a note telling me that they are going to put the sources up soon, and I will not remove the relevant sections.

I am sure that the church has some kind of newsletter or yearly statistics publication. These would be valid sources I believe. Please try to include them because a lot of the article will be deleted otherwise.

Thanks

--GuyIncognito 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I have created a new site http://www.waymanmitchell.com which has alot of Potter's House books scanned in which contain the citations required. I am very busy at present and am a bit pressed for time. If you could give me a bit more time I will do it.

Nick.

www.waymanmitchell.com

Just for reference, even Dave Hunt seems to have been critisized by CRI http://cultlink.com/sentinel/criattack.html. I love Dave Hunt and his teachings. CRI have been accused as being very Pro Catholic of late. Perhaps I could add this to the article somehow.

Nick.

www.pottershouse.com.au

As far as CRI goes, I'm sure that they have their share of critics. I'm not sure that just because they criticized Dave Hunt, though, this should affect their credibility. The main criticism I've seen that people have of Dave Hunt is that he is so lacking in expertise and so rarely adheres to scholarly standards that no critically minded reader could take him seriously. Perhaps this is true, perhaps it isn't. To criticise Dave Hunt doesn't necessarily make you a fan of Catholicism - just look at James White's website to see that!

Either way, this article contains plenty of Potter's House references even though, clearly, the Potter's House is logically going to have a 'pro-Potter's House' bias. I suggest looking at the claims CRI have made, examine the evidence they cite in support for those claims, and determine if the inference they seek to connect the two with has a sufficient warrant. Then construct a counter-argument and post it on the internet. That way readers can hear what you think is wrong with their arguments, as opposed to what you think is wrong with them.

--GuyIncognito 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross

It seems that the people at the Rick Ross site are sick of me coming to thier site and trying to make it neutral, i.e. saying EVERY side of the story. They have deleted the Link to Rick Ross whick I have put back up, but yet show that sites like the cracked pots and life after the potter's house are to be allowed. I hope that these people who are hell bent on getting these links off Wiki will not show bias next time but will kindly delete all sites that are "of poor quality" and let the others remain (sic). It would be good to perhaps discuss their intentions before deleting the links also Potters house 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

As for the Rick Ross references, I'm not defending what they are doing because I have no involvement in that particular article. But it's possible that the website simply attacks Ross' character rather than the arguments that he puts forward. Let's for the sake of argument say someone is an athiest and a homosexual and has a criminal past. They're not saying "trust me because I'm a nice guy" they're saying "listen to the claims being made and if the evidence backs them up then believe them". I don't think it's very helpful to point out all this stuff about a guy when his arguments are based on particular interpretations rather than on him being some kind of eye-witness.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial. [1]

--GuyIncognito 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that a citation is needed that Ross claims the CFM is a cult is strange. On his site it claims to be:

"A database of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RRI) is a nonprofit public resource with a vast archive that contains thousands of individual documents. RRI on-line files include news stories, research papers, reports, court documents, book excerpts, personal testimonies and hundreds of links to additional relevant resources. This database is well-organized for easy access and reference."

With titles like "A Cult In Prescott" or "There Is Genuine Life Outside The Potter's House" it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Rick Ross claims that CFM is a cult. He also says this on Google groups openly. (I will find source)

It is like having your name on a list of Pedophiles on some watchdog web group; but then they turn around and say that they are not claiming that you are a pedophile and ask you to prove where they said that. it is self explanitory. Potters house 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

You're correct. I'm not sure who put that 'citation needed' thing there.

--GuyIncognito 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the Ross boys hate the link because it has alot of evidence about Ross. But what needs to made clear is that yahoo groups, crackedpots, slam the Door etc, are even less credible than the link I am putting up. So if the RR link goes - then so do all the others. How come there is a warning about the deletion of links but they can just delete as they feel like it? Potters house 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Nick

Is RR a wiki sponsor or something? Potters house 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Nick

Is Potters House being paid to promote slander of Rick Ross? For God's sake, that "critique of Ross by an unknown organization" -- yeah, that's a freaking reliable source right there -- doesn't just assert that Ross is homosexual; it tries to argue that such a conclusion can be inferred from ways he could have (but did not) complete a sentence that starts "I have previously ..."

Nick also still likes to play fast and loose with the facts in other ways. "With titles like "A Cult In Prescott" or "There Is Genuine Life Outside The Potter's House" it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Rick Ross claims that CFM is a cult." So, Nick -- if your local public library carries a book titled "God is Dead", are you going to claim that by carrying that book, the library itself is claiming that God is dead? No? Then where is the logic of saying 'Ross reprints an article whose title is "A Cult in Prescott?"' -- note the question mark in that title, a significant detail you omitted -- 'and therefore Rick Ross himself is claiming that CFM is a cult'? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that what Nick is claiming is "self-explanatory", isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a public library, which carries titles on many topics, and a website which specializes in one particular area. So, if my local public library carried a book critical of PH, I wouldn't conclude that the library was anti-PH. OTOH, if a cult specialty store carried a PH book in its " modern day cults" section, I'd consider the possibility that it was claiming PH was a cult. After examining Ross's site, I fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn but that Ross believes those organizations on his site are either "cultic or destructive". He's clearly not claiming that the groups on his site are mainstream or "healthy".Jlujan69 05:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that in your bookstore analogy, you say "I'd consider the possibility", and in the case of Ross, you say "I fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn" -- i.e., you wouldn't consider any other possibility. Why -- besides personal prejudice against Ross himself, something that Nick is doing his very best to promote -- would you discount out of hand the possibility that Ross is keeping an open mind on whether PH is a cult, but is examining the evidence which suggests it may be and making that evidence available for others to examine? Are you saying that one can either be looking at the evidence or keeping an open mind, but never both? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know who made the Ross site. His name is Neil Taylor. At the time Neil made it, he was a good friend of mine. The site had good info and heaps of scanned items so the reader can make their own conclusion. My argument though is this - have a good look at the sites, if they are not acceptable then we can only conclude that most of the sites against the Potter's House Church in this article are also unacceptable. In other words, when they are removed then the others will also be, that is only fair. Potters house 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Also as far as Antaeus Feldspar stating that because Rick Ross has the Potter's House listed on his site doesn't mean that Rick thinks we are a cult, perhaps in a court you would get away with that reasoning, but in reality, a group listed on a cult buster site would usually mean that the owner/manager of the site considered the group as cultic. Sorry for using such simple logic. Potters house 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Ahhhhh, I see, so your own personal acquaintance with the author of that website makes it a reliable source? Hmmmm, I don't think so.

As far as your "simple logic", I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you add 2 and 2 and 2, they won't add up to 7, and no matter how many times you assemble the facts you do have, they simply don't support the conclusion that you want. Saying "Rick Ross maintains an eye on groups that many people consider cults; Rick Ross undoubtedly agrees in some of these cases that that the group is a cult; ergo in this specific case he clearly not only thinks but states that the group is a cult" is just plain wrong. I really have to shake my head at your bizarre statement "perhaps in a court you would get away with that reasoning," as if in a court of law you would be able to make any sort of claim you want that "Rick Ross states this!" and "Rick Ross states that!" and that "perhaps" someone might "get away with" pointing out that your statements are entirely your own guesswork, which you have been unable to support with actual evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I run a site saying Elvis is alive, collect many articles claiming this, have a database of multiple anonymous emails claiming that Elvis is alive, and offer no alternate conclusion, most people would conclude that indeed I myself thought Elvis was indeed alive! But because I don't specifically say that Elvis is alive on my site, if anyone concludes that, then they are "pointing out that their statements are entirely their own guesswork, which they have been unable to support with actual evidence," and they are "much like adding 2 and 2 and 2, and coming up with 7." Potters house 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

I guess that is why he has http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html on his site! Potters house 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you're trying to be sarcastic, but I guess you'll just have to settle for being correct. No matter how much you convince yourself with "simple logic" that a particular person must hold a particular point of view, you simply are not entitled to insert that personal conclusion when you cannot actually show any confirming evidence. If you run a site (I'm modifying your imprecise analogy, here) which collects articles claiming Elvis is alive, speculations on how Elvis might be still alive despite all the evidence of death, anonymous claims from others that they have seen Elvis alive, et cetera, am I entitled to insert in a Wikipedia article "Nick of Potter's House thinks Elvis is still alive", when you have never said such a thing? No. Either you said it, in which case I can insert the statement with a reference showing where you said it, so that others can check the context, or you didn't say it. If you didn't say it, I have no right to use my "simple logic" to assume it's what you must be thinking and falsely assert that you said it anyways.

And it would be even more wrong for me to do so if you actually had a disclaimer on your site indicating that merely gathering in one place the claims and assertions and speculations of others that Elvis was alive did not mean you necessarily believed that to be true. If I choose to believe that your disclaimer is insincere, that you really must actually believe that Elvis is alive or else you'd never accumulate so much material relating to the idea of Elvis being alive, well, that's my privilege as a reader, to decide what I believe and do not believe. But it is clearly not my privilege as a Wikipedia editor to falsely assert that "Nick claims Elvis is still alive" when you have never done so, and it is especially wrong if I do so based on the assumption "Nick must think Elvis is still alive, if he spends so much time discussing it", ignoring your disclaimer which specifically states "the fact that I so often discuss the possibility of Elvis still being alive doesn't mean that I think or claim that he is." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ross Links

As stated before, there are numerous sites that are linked to in this article that are of equal or lesser quality that must also be deleted if the ones Antaeus Feldspar are removed. That is only fair. These include

"Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [(Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([(Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices. "

So:

(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots (Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House (Deleted Link) Slam The Door!

Two of these also appear on the bottom of the page also. All would agree that if the links Antaeus Feldspar continually deletes for being poor quality, then it is only fair if I then proceed to delete the above links also. I will put the ones Antaeus Feldspar deleted back for now, if they are deleted again I will also have to delete these other "poor quality" links. Potters house 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29 for the refusal of the "poor quality links".

Why dont you talk here and not in the history bar, can we not be resonable about this? I have retained the links you deleted, and will make a complaint about your unappropriate behavior if the vandalism continues. You seem to approve the "poor quality" links that seem to smear the church yet continue to delete the "poor quality" links that seem to smear Rick Ross. This is a double standard. Either delete ALL so called poor "quality links" or delete none. You are not been neutral here and you are not contributing to the article but mearly defending slandereous links and deleting links that refute the slanderers. Potters house 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minor change

In the Church Doctrine section, I changed the last sentence to allow that thought to proceed more smoothly from the previous sentences and still be neutral--or something like that. I'm hardly an English grammar major!Jlujan69 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "militant" under Church Activity. The word is clearly pejorative.--LawrenceTrevallion 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Sentence

The following sentence, in my reading of WP:RS, could be considered a secondary source of information, reviewing a primary source, the rickross.com web site.

"Rick Ross also has many critics himself and his anti cult practices such as deprogramming, but has made an effort to answer them on his site Rick Ross answers his critics Rick Ross speaks out against sites that claim to expose him"

As Wikipedia should be a tertiary source, I would suggest this sentence should not be included. Addhoc 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Please resolve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House before deleting any more links. Potters house 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Tilman 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&action=history This is his response. I noticed that he says that he has been accused before:

"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case"

He doesn't want to talk about the issues but mearly posts short messages in the history.

Tillman who defends Ross seems to work for him, but that's ok, but not for neutral articles see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tilman look at his article contributions they are all against scientology, Rick Ross has had a recent lawsuit against them, check out his deletion selection on 1 August 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060804173200&limit=50&target=Tilman

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&action=history

The link (Deleted Link) seems to be a problem but almost half of the anti PH links are nowhere near as good quality!

"See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&action=history This is his response." No, that is a link to the entire history of my talk page. I suspect that this is the edit you refer to, however. If you examine the edit summary, you will see that it says "rm section that simply duplicates a discussion on article talk page; see header". This is a reference to a warning I have had on my user talk page for well over a year now: "if you are planning to post the exact same complaints to my user page and to the talk page of the article you're upset about, don't be surprised when it's deleted from here." Except now, you are acting surprised! You posted the exact same content to this page and to my user talk page and then when I remove this absolutely useless duplication, you try to twist that into "He doesn't want to talk about the issues but mearly posts short messages in the history." Well, pardon my French, Nick, that's bullshit. It is not, perhaps, as atrocious and malicious bullshit as when you posted messages to thirty separate user talk pages and to WP:AN as well falsely accusing me of being a racist, an absolutely indefensible lie for which you have still not had the class, courtesy, or guts to apologize. But it is still bullshit, as anyone can easily see by looking at this article talk page and reading how many times I tried to get basic facts about "the issues" through to you -- basic things such as 'you cannot invent words to put in Rick Ross's mouth, just because in your mind, it sounds like something you think he'd say.' If I stopped posting long messages to you, it was because you made it quite clear that, no matter how often or at what length the rules were explained to you, you would continue to insist that "simple logic" entitled you to falsely attribute statements to people and the "interesting testimony" of Johnny Lee Clary would allow you to keep creating new articles about him to replace the ones deleted by the proper AfD process ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). But if you would like to explain what, exactly, one could say to you that would make you stop your sleazy smear jobs against other editors, and start actually paying attention to the rules instead of just trying to sneak around them, oh, then, by all means, tell us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Links

That's much better, there is a bit too much cluttler in here.Potters house 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could we discuss the "Guardian of the Truth or Garner of Attention?" Web Site...

Have I read this web site correctly? Does it really say:

"if Ross is a Homosexual he has been betraying those he claims to help by acting on his own hatred of women."

If the site is saying homosexual = misogynist, then at the very least, this would unverified research and consequently would not be appropriate for inclusion even for an external link. Addhoc 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

rrexposed is an anonymous smear site, probably from scientology (the altered pictures are from them, and its their modus operandi). Should be deleted per WP:WEB. The other site is just of poor quality, but is somewhat relevant (since it is a response to Ross by the Potter group). --Tilman 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree the rrexposed link should not be included. Addhoc 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the other links then! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House Potters house 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I found this site. Personally, I consider the rrexposed site to contain unverified claims and therefore in my understanding of WP:RS should not be included. Could you explain your concerns regarding the other sites in terms of WP:RS and WP:EL? Addhoc 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The other links aren't hate sites. Please understand that a religious group - even one that isn't a cult - will have to live with criticism. The best thing to do would be to discuss the criticism, maybe make changes / reforms, instead of smearing the attackers. Read the 10 commendments (if the Bible is read in your group) - there's something about "bearing false witness". I could get a reference if you can't find it. --Tilman 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, I don't consider this comment to be very helpful. Addhoc 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross web Sites

Could we discuss whether these web site are reliable sources?

• Rick Ross answers his critics
• Rick Ross speaks out against sites that claim to expose him

Potters House, are you indicating that in your understanding they are unverified research? Addhoc 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cracked Pots and Life after Potter's House web site

The [(Deleted Link) Cracked Pots] link and [(Deleted Link) Life after Potter's House] link, which is a geocities site, appears to be non-reliable sources. Tilman, could you explain why you consider they are reliable sources? Addhoc 10:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Life after Potter's House uses sounds files from the founder to criticize him, plus court files excerpts that indicate a perjury. If these files aren't found elsewhere, I would no longer reference it because it's mostly a link list.

The Cracked Pots contain many first hand testimonies of ex-members, and first hand quotes from "Potty" pastors.

Why do you think that these are not reliable sources - because they are set on free websites? I understand that Nick's criticism is mostly that they inflate their membership, not that their contents is somehow untrue. --Tilman 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm suggesting the sites could be regarded as primary sources. According to WP:RS "we may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher". Addhoc 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me apply the same standard to the link about Ross

You say that Life after the Potter's House should be retained because it has direct quotes from Mitchell etc. These quotes are out of context and if you listed to the entire sermon you will clearly see that. Because he says “rap music says bitches and whores” doesn’t mean that HE uses those terms, but that Rappers use those terms, the audios are out of context and biased. They guy has things like http://www.geocities.com/life_after_potters_house/womwealth.jpg which is just obvious slander and not good research.

Let me apply the same standard to the link about Ross:

Look at the rrexposed site (Deleted Link) - we see quotes from Rick Ross to criticize him, plus court files excerpts that indicate criminal past. If these files aren't found elsewhere, I would no longer reference it because it's mostly a link list.

The rrexposed site contains many first hand testimonies Psychiatrists, Judges, and Ross himself, and first hand quotes from Ross in court about many issues.

The issue is that you seem to feel that it is fine to delete the Ross page because of "poor quality" but then want keep other ones which have less quality. Mainly because you have already sided against the church. The Rick Ross site is of 10 fold better quality than the anti PH links, and it is private too, not geocities or yahoo. It has photo copies of all the court transcripts revealing Ross' Homosexuality. You then concluded: :Why do you think that these are not reliable sources - because they are set on free websites?" No because it is just lies and slander. Then:

I understand that Nick's criticism is mostly that they inflate their membership, not that their contents is somehow untrue.

Tilman how can one ever prove what others say as untrue if they claims are things like "all people in the Potter's House are feel trapped but lie about it", "you are a closet homo" or "the Potter's House is filled with secret perverts who have a strong desire to have sex with animals", how can you disprove all of that? As sick as that may seem to most, as a Christian, what they are implying that - I am a Homosexual, Wayman Mitchell teaches pastors to have prostitutes, I am a masturbator, we always lie, our church is a pyramid money making scheme, we are all brainwashed...etc I could go on and on, but lets just look at some of these real accusations:

How can I disprove the claim that I am a Homosexual? Do I then have to get a medical examination to prove I have not had sex with a man? Sounds crude but think about how sick this is to us who see homosexuality as forbidden in the bible.

How can it be proven that Mitchell doesn't tell his pastors to have prostitutes, if I said that you secretly show your family pornography, and that all your family are liars, how would you disprove that?

How can I disprove the accusation that I am a masturbator? I mean this is ridiculous!

How can I disprove I am not brainwashed? It is like me saying “someone who likes Michael Moore books and films and believes it is brainwashed? You could say that I am wrong but how do you prove it! It is silly, and goes against all reasonable debate.

I know I have been crass, but these are REAL accusations they have made against me and the church leadership, there are 100' of other allegations that are just as silly.

Tilman, how can these be disproved? And if some things can be disproved, how much time do I spend disproving these things. Can a medical report disprove homosexuality? Can I prove I am not brainwashed? And anyway, they call me a liar etc, so it wouldn't matter – they would just make up something else, a practice they have been proven to do.

Let Rick Ross disprove that he is a Homosexual. Let him disprove that he hates all Christians. Let him disprove that he is not a psycho with a dangerous past. See what I mean? How can one disprove these things? Either the RR site stays and all anti PH ones stay, or the RR site goes and all anti PH (the slanderous ones only) go too. That is true neutrality.

If the RR site isn't "credible" enough I can always of duplicate it myself to make it more credible and more acceptable to Wiki. I have http://www.newsau.com and can run the material from the RR - exposed site there (seeing it has no copyright) and I can have a links page just like the Life in the Potters House, but one that links to all anti Ross pages. Potters house 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned whether Rick Ross is a homosexual or not. However, the www.rrexposed appears to indicate that homosexuality equates with misogyny and this in my understanding constitutes unverified research. Regarding the other web sites, I am not yet convinced they are secondary sources of information. Addhoc 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but why arn't you looking at the other pages that are anti Potter's House? You seem to be only concerned with the anti RR site, but are no even acknowleging that the people who made them are of equal or even less credability! Potters house 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that Rick Ross does not have any formal academic qualifications and this has significance in determining whether his site is a reliable source. According to WP:RS:

"Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree... The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."

In this context, I am not convinced the following web sites are reliable secondary sources.

• Rick Ross answers his critics
• Rick Ross speaks out against sites that claim to expose him
• [(Deleted Link) Cracked Pots]
• [(Deleted Link) Life after Potter's House]

Addhoc 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross is certainly reputable in his field. He has many years experience. See Rick Ross. And he's certainly an expert about himself. The other websites are evidence that there is criticism - not that this criticism is "right". --Tilman 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Rick Ross has experience, but no qualifications. In the field of new religious movements, has he demonstrated published expertise? The other web sites appear to be primary sources of information and in this context, I don't think we should use them. Addhoc 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

His cultnews.com blog is often quoted by the media, and he has held lectures at universities. [8] [9] [10] Although he's controversial, I wouldn't say this is just a guy with an opinion and a blog. --Tilman 13:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, WP:RS gives the following advice:

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and 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. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."

So the criteria are "well known", which isn't a problem and "professional researcher", which isn't completely implausible. However his work, must have been published by a credible third party publication. I would consider this more than just a newspaper interviewing him or quoting him. Has there been anything? Addhoc 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're asking for too much, in my opinion. Ross hasn't written books. But he has been invited for lectures at universities. Some well known researchers have endorsed him. [11] That gives him a lot of credibility. --Tilman 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We are missing the point: 1)there are links that claim things against the Potter's House by people whom have been proven liars, slanderers etc. I have never tried to delete Rick Ross links, because I believe he is credible but misinformed about the Potter's House and often quotes the people who have been proven as liars, gossips, and slanderers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House 2) The same person who made the RRexposed also made the Cracked Pots site! He made the RR exposed while he was a Potter's House pastor but has now left and has made the site cracked pots. If you feel that the RRexposed is unreliable etc, then the same must apply for the cracked pots site. If Joe Blog wrote made a site saying that George bush is a homosexual, a liar, deceiver and is insane, and the SAME PERSON makes a site saying that Tony Blair is a homosexual, a liar, deceiver and is insane, it would be biased to used links to one site and not the other. The Slam the Door people run a Yahoo group claiming that I am a Homosexual, that pastor Mitchell teaches pastors to have prostitutes, that I have left the Potter's House and read pornography, etc. What I am saying is, if you see the RRexposed as not valid, I feel you are being very biased when you claim that the cracked pot is valid, or Slam the door, or Life in the Potter's House.

The guys name is Neil Taylor, the same Neil whom I have talked about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House In the View source on the page Why this site (Deleted Link)why_this_site.htm if you search for Neil you will see:

Arizona Republic/November 6, 1982 <a href="file:///D:/Neils%20Stuff/Rick%20Ross%20Web%20Page/bigotry_lurks_in_born_again.htm" style="color: #0080FF">"Bigotry

I knew Neil while he was a pastor, he has since left the Potter's House, his wife left him and is a lesbian, and Neil being embittered created the cracked pots. He is a proven liar - again see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House

I know that some of the info he gives is factual on the RRexposed site, but some is slander, because he made the site when he was quite an honest guy back in the day, but has since become a complete liar, hence the reason for the more recent lies on Yahoo groups and cracked pots etc. He even has (deleted link) is_rick_ross_a_child_molester.htm . It may not be mentioned as a link on the RRexposed main page but it comes up in Google, much like the links on the cracked pots, life after the potters house, slam the door etc, they are vicious and often dangerous AS ARE THE ANTI PH LINKS!

If you use the information solely for the deletion of the RRexposed only, that is showing bias, the cracked pots, life after the potters house, slam the door links MUST GO TOO!

I tire of deleting and replacing links. If this links thing cannot be resolved I will make a more factual site here www.newsau.com to expose Ross and make it fit for Wiki, I don't want to go that route but feel forced because of the bias here. I do have credability and will not remain anonymous. Nick Sayers Potters house 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Only you "proved" them as "liars". Your "evidence" only proved that somebody was slandering somebody, and somebody was accusing somebody to be a sockpuppet.
2. This only shows that the name of someone is "Neil". If this "Neil" guy is yours, why didn't he mention his affiliation? It could as well be Karen Neil [12]. I believe that this smear site was created by scientology, because that is their modus operandi.
3. What "credability" do you have? Your arguments here haven't persuaded me. Your logic was often flawed. Do you think you satisfy the tough criteria set by user:Addhoc ?
4. Why so angry about Rick Ross only? There's criticism by others as well, e.g. Steve Hassan.
5. Finally, why all the fuss? As I told before, most of the definition is "yours". The criticism section is small, and it has a rebuttal.

--Tilman 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Ahh well it looks like I am getting nowhere with you, I knew neil like the posts in the mediation say, but you seem to think I am lying. Forget it, Newsau.com will be the largest site for information about Rick Ross one the net. Potters house 12:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But how will you turn this into a "reliable source" according to WP:RS? Plus - why waste the time? The usual criticism against Ross is already in Wikipedia. --Tilman 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also if it was scientolgy based the dead link on http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/rossr17.html would be fixed by now. Neil Taylor was boasting to me how he made the site. Potters house 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was him, why didn't he delete it now that he has a different opinion about Potters House? Or do you allege that he dislikes both? --Tilman 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Ok, I agree with User:Potters house in that if we are saying that "RRexposed" is an unreliable source, then "Cracked Pots", "Life after the Potter's House" and "Slam the Door" links also should be considered unreliable. Concerning the Rick Ross site, I consider this site is slightly borderline, however I don't object to it being included. Addhoc 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is, to what degree do we need to rely on these sites? I've been a bit sick lately, so I haven't been able to keep up with all the fol-de-rol, but in this case I think it's good, because I was able to come back with fresh eyes and notice something glaring about this whole kerfuffle:

Why is Nick so insistent on having Ross criticize his organization?

Why? If the article contained claims against the Potter's House for which we were taking Rick Ross's word, then maybe information about Ross might be considered important, to "impeach" Ross's testimony. But that's not the case! For all that the article claims Ross to be one of the most vocal critics of Potter's House, there is exactly one criticism that Ross is alleged to be making about Potter's House, and all the evidence indicates that it is falsely attributed to Ross. That criticism, allegedly made by Ross, is that Potter's House is a cult; however, this is by all the evidence not something Ross has ever said, but rather something that Nick deduces that Ross believes. In Nick's own words, "in reality, a group listed on a cult buster site would usually mean that the owner/manager of the site considered the group as cultic. Sorry for using such simple logic." [13] Nick himself points out Ross's disclaimer, where Ross states that merely being on the site does not mean that the group is a cult, or is harmful or destructive,[14] but even after that feels he is entitled to draw exactly those conclusions which the disclaimer warns he is not justified in drawing, and ignore any request that he provide actual support for the claims he makes.[15]

So why is Nick so insistent on including a criticism against his organization that he can't show any evidence that its supposed originator ever made? Well, let's look at it this way: The "Cracked Pots" and "Slam the Door" and other sites may not be very reliable sources, but neither is the claim these sources are supporting an extravagant claim: it is basically the claim that there are disaffected ex-members. It would be quite some feat to find a site of disaffected ex-members that was too unreliable to support the claim "there are disaffected ex-members." So, if someone wanted to cover up the existence of such ex-members, or at least remove any links to those ex-members so that readers would have a hard time getting to see the other side of the story, what could they do? Well, they could do exactly what Nick's doing: trying to force an absolutely unacceptable external link into the article, in order to impugn the integrity of someone whose word would be questionable if his word was actually being taken for anything, which the evidence suggests it isn't -- and then, when that smear link was rightfully rejected, try to bargain and say "All right, if you won't let me have this link which supports nothing of importance in the article, then I insist that you remove this other link, which acknowledges that there is another side to the story besides that of my organization!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that this link is missing: [16]. Which is 3rd party content that is on Ross site, but not by Rick Ross. --Tilman 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine forget it, I am tired of your rating and missing the point and blindly supporting ross but rejecting me. Have the link - i.e. you win. I have started on http://www.newsau.com and will continue to build it until it is the biggest site of reference for Rick Ross, oh and mine has a disclaimer too, so please don't accuse me. I have access to 112 web pages that I can put the link on staight away. This will be next to the actual RickRoss.com site in google soon. Potters house 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

newsau.com is of course not a reliable source. The first page already shows it's just a smear site. --Tilman 17:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He made it with another guy from the States. I knew him quite well, and remember him boasing about putting the flaming website award on the site. Rick Ross thinks Brett Mason made it, this is a smokescreen - probably from Neil, Breet is a Potter's House pastor in Melbourne who Neil hates, see: (Deleted Link)is_there_a_thief_in_oakleigh.htm This is in the "shame files." Right under where Neil accuses Wayman Mitchell of having prostitutes in "The Phoenix Connection?" - what a jerk.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if you read through the mediation, you will see that he pretended to be a multitude of people to try and decieve us, he pretended to be my Ex girlfriend for crying out loud!

He was a Pastor who had about 5-10 people, never saw much happen, he was known for slandering other pastors. His wife left him and became a lesbian, he became embittered towards christians and hence the site.

I don't want to make an anti RR site, but seem to be forced into doing so. If the same type of slander and gossip about the PH are continually linked to, it seems that there is credability to it. If people hear a lie perpetually they will believe it! The only way then is to discredit those people. As a back up I am working on a site dealing with neil, also Ken haining, Perry Bale, George Potkonyak, etc, and thier relationship with the Rick Ross corporation, if the links remain. You wouldn't like to see your friends and family called, liars, decievers, adulterers, homosexuals, child molesters, etc if it wasn't true.

I am also working on a site that deals with the claims on Rick Ross .com from a christian perspective, i.e. answering every article critically, asking pastors the other side of the story, because I know first hand also that alot of what Rick has on his site is from Neil, Ken, George, under many different names! I intend on proving that. A critical biography of Ross is on the cards, as well as newsau. I cannot validate anything on Newsau and would prefer not to build it, but feel that there is no compromise or negaotions whatsoever. Most PH sites will link to newsau, because we are tired of the lies. Potters house 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Surpisingly, I actually think Ross does a very good Job on hate groups such as Neo Nazis, KKK etc, also scientolgy. Potters house 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you think that Ross does a "very good Job" on "scientolgy" ^[sic] but that won't stop you from repeating allegations against Ross from their magazine Freedom, even though you freely admit that you "cannot validate anything" on your hate site. I've got two phrases for you to consider, Nick, that you may not ever have heard of before. The first is "malicious disregard for the truth". The second is "integrity". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it must be hard to be on the other side of the fence! We as Potter's House believers have copped this type of flack from Ross for years. It is sad that almost all the content about CFM is by hyper sensationalized media, but that is a side issue and if you want to talk more about this please email me @ nick@nsw1.com. Wiki has a policy NO POV. Keep the subject matter at the fore and lets discuss the links. So if I behave the same as Ross do I now lack integrity? What does this say of Ross? Potters house 07:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A.F. (like many wikipedia users in other discussions, I failed to read the earlier discussion) that if one can't find that Ross says PH is a cult, there's no need to include criticism of Ross there. What could be done instead, is something like this: controversial cult expert Rick Ross, while not making a statement himself, hosts a series of articles critical about Potters House [17]. This would point to his definition, which does explain why he is controversial, and it would point to the newspaper articles about Potters House. --Tilman 17:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Ok, could I suggest the article is unprotected and links to the following sites are not included in the article:

• "Cracked Pots"
• "Life after the Potter's House"
• "RRexposed"
• "Slam the Door"

Addhoc 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutly, that is what I have been asking all along, it is only fair that either all of these remain or all are deleted. If they remain, so be it, if they are deleted, so be it. To alow one POV and not another is biased. Potters house 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest instead that we simply remove the claim about Ross calling Potter's House a cult, since after repeated challenges no one has produced any evidence to indicate that he actually did, and since there are no longer statements being attributed to Ross, remove the links alleging this and that and the other thing about Ross. We can also let Nick get back to his announced plan of creating the world's largest site targeting Ross for defamation, collecting every bit of gossip and slander and innuendo and half-baked private theory about Ross that he can find or invent. Because that, apparently, is what "Christians" of Nick's ilk do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is terrible having people say bad things about you, I know first hand, I mean just look at Ross' site! You seem to be claiming that it is unethical to have a site that focuses on the negative newspaper trash articles. Well isn't that what Ross has about the Potter's House? I am just making a site that is based on his morals and ethics. Are you then implying that Ross is being unethical? I don't wish to make the site, but it seems that to fight "gossip and slander and innuendo and half-baked private theory(s)" I must oin turn show the world that there are the same types of things being said about Ross (and amazingly by the same people!). When you guys play hard ball it is resonable, but when I do the same I am unchristian? Like you said yourself Antaeus Feldspar, read the disclaimer! I do not claim that Ross is these things but mearly show that others do, just as Ross claims to do of the Potter's House. I vote to delete all links as stated above, and we can all go back to exposing the real cults like Scientology, KKK, moonies, etc. Potters house 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I think there might be a difference between asking "does this church which espouses Christian values actually practice those Christian values" and asking "can we guess at someone's sexual preference based on a sentence that they didn't even complete? can we allege that they are misogynist, based on the above unverified guess about their sexual preference plus an ill-informed belief that 'homosexual = misogynist'? can we invite readers to speculate that the person is a child "molestor" even as we admit that we have absolutely no evidence, only rumors?" Spreading rumors of child molestation, Nick -- your God must be so proud of you and your talent for vicious gossip. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time, possibly not mention your God etc. Addhoc 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above please keep POV out of this - email me nick@nsw1.com, I know it is hard, I have been angry about the gossip spread by Ross and the Slam the Door people for years now (hence the links I am trying to delete). By you continually putting those links up, you are almost saying you agree with thier claims that I am a homosexual, liar, psycho, brainwashed, wan**r (they have called me worse names but I could be banned for saying them here in wiki), but I am mearly behaving the same as Ross, please name one thing that newsau has about Ross that Ross doesnt have about the PH church! I know Rick is a Jew, does the Jewish God show pride in him and his talent for vicious gossip? You have a double standard sir, and show bias to Ross. I will happily get rid of newsau, if the links mentioned above are dissallowed here on wiki. Potters house 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Sentence

Ok, I'm suggesting this sentence should be removed, because the sources are unreliable:

"Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [(Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([(Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices."

Could users who would prefer this sentence is retained, explain their reasoning... Addhoc 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If we remove that sentence then we should absolutely remove the sentences that end the preceding section:

"Like all organisations that share in a common mission and goal, there is a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship amongst members. Outwardly, many members exhibit joy in their attendance of the church."

If we cannot acknowledge that ex-members (and Nick has confirmed for us that they are ex-members, not "alleged" ex-members) have alleged the fellowship to be abusive in its practices then there is absolutely no reason that we should be casually asserting that there is "a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship" among current members of the group. Wikipedia has no way of knowing whether these members have "a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship" or not; what could possibly be a source reliable enough to verify someone's inner emotional state? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that uncited material, including the sentence you mention, should be removed. Addhoc 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Potters house 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Compromise

Would the following compromise be acceptable?

1. Remove this sentence "Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [ (Deleted Link) Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([ (Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices."

2. Also remove these sentences "Like all organisations that share in a common mission and goal, there is a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship amongst members. Outwardly, many members exhibit joy in their attendance of the church."

3. Agree the [(Deleted Link) RRexposed.com] site shouldn't be included.

Addhoc 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're an admin, be bold and just make the changes. --Tilman 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not an admin. Addhoc 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair, should I also go back through the histoy and delete all links in talk to RRexposed, newsau, crackedpots, life after.., slam the door, etc links?

Only if you have time on your hands. I'll request the page is unprotected, if that's ok. Addhoc 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt at cleanup, which, hopefully, respects both the NPOV / RS suggestions of Addhoc, and my own "ideas". --Tilman 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Nick deleted all the controversial links from the past discussion. I'm not sure if this is ok, since this makes it unclear what we were discussing. Feel free to revert (I don't mind that this paragraph is deleted in the revert as well. --Tilman 07:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, you guys get the new RR link to Anti PH material, and you get the Newsau and RRexposed down, and I get Cracked Pots, Life After the PH, and Slam the door down. I appreciate the help of Addhoc. www.newsau.com is also changed. Potters house 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean when you look at the [Jehovah's Witnesses] article there is hardly any critical links, when it would have to be the most critisized group on the net! Potters house 07:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I was wrong it is on another page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

"One group against whom Potter's House makes this allegation is Slam the Door. It's been claimed by Potter's House advocates that the members of this site each assumed several different identities to inflate their numbers on the site, making it appear that there were more allegations of abuse than there really were. Some critics allegely keep their identities hidden and thus Potter's House defenders claim it is difficult to assess their credibility and the veracity of their claims."

I think that this should be deleted now given that the Slam the Door group is no longer referred to on the page.

GuyIncognito 06:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - from the way it is now, there isn't really any criticism by "Slam the door" left. --Tilman 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slam the door link has been dead for a while now anyway. Potters house 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has any ideas for an official logo or knows where I can get one please put it up here!. 124.183.255.67 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Some links that could be added there are heaps, some are already in use here also, but here they are: http://www.waymanmitchell.com Site about Pastor Wayman Mitchell the Founder of the Potter's House Christian Fellowship

http://www.pottersclub.com A site by a disciple in the Potter's House about doctrines (not an official PH site)

http://www.forumsau.com A forum for Potter's House Christians

http://www.cfmau.com A directory for Australian Churches

http://www.pottershouse.com Beechborro Potter's House Perth WA Australia

http://www.pottershouse.com.au Parramatta Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.worldcfm.com Potter's House World Wide Christian Fellowship

http://fairfield.pottershouse.com fairfield Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.pottershouseramsgate.info Ramsgate Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.pottershousealicesprings.com Alice Springs Potter's House NT Australia

http://www.pottershouse.tk Boxhill North Potter's House Vic Australia

http://www.pottershouseuk.com Liverpool Potter's House England

http://www.lvchristiancenter.com

http://www.thedoorcfc.com Tucson The Door Church AZ USA

http://www.phmesa.com Los Vegas Christian Centre LV New Mexico

http://www.dedeur.nl De Deur (The Door) Netherlands

http://www.lvchristiancenter.com/church/africa

http://www.thepottershousekilleen.com

http://www.pottershouse.co.uk/home.htm

http://www.pottershouselubbock.com

http://www.thepottershousetemple.com

http://www.geocities.com/the_tat14/potters_houseNWHouston.html

http://www.pottershouseshreveport.org

http://thedoorchurchep.com/index.html

http://www.pottersclub.com/category.asp?cat1=Audio_Sermons Potter's House Audio Sermons

http://www.geocities.com/potters_house_club/index.html?1155092273369 A Potter's House Links Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Mitchell Wikipedia Article on Wayman Mitchell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship Wikipedia Article on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship

Please read WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files --Tilman 06:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the church

I have requested paragraph 2 of the section be edited. I ask why my editions continue to be reverted. I also point out that there is no mention of "former members" that have left and complained to the various cult network groups. I also ask that the link be provided to a new and current website run by Migual Hayworth the first plumbline which contains current up to date material including video and audio clips from the potters house preachers.

Also the very thing that ex-members complain about namely the "authority structure" of the church has been downplayed to make it seem less important or harmful. I also ask that links to current discussion groups from which the first, both Nick & I are apart of the crackpots and the other escape from the fellowship. These groups have over 2000 posts in the last year each and both providing help and support and open discussion about the potters house, which is a helpful forum for any person to make their own judgement about the church. Darren Smith Feb 17 -2007

In the next few weeks I'm going to propose some editions to the "critics of the church" section. Basically I'm asking for a fair explaination placed as to the current status of the church. I call upon several witnesses or more to help in this. Also consider that the user user:Potters_house has placed several external links to websites which he is a contributor to namely:

Born Again Christian Forums - The Potters Club - Wayman Mitchell Biography Page

If I was accused of pushing my own barrow then what do you call this?? I will be asking for amendments to be made even though I was not present last time. I was a member of the potters house church for 5 years and I can say most definately the information in the critics section is not neutral and the links to the cult-awareness groups provide no EXTRA information, for they are of the same material. Rick Ross should be enough and I suggest placing the firstplumbline on this as well. I also suggest adding a statement to make people aware that the critics themselves are mostly ex-members of the church, which has well been documented in special news reports and other media throughout the internet. You don't find the cult groups protesting against the church but the ex-members that do. Also the lies against the critics being "deceptive" or having "ulterior motives" should be deleted as there is no proof for this statement, for if the critics are mostly ex-members than that changes the meaning of the statments altogether because the church is turning against those that used to be apart of it and not that they are strangers they've never met before as would be implied as it stands. Also the statement the "critics are non-credible, small in number" is also based on unfounded evidence. The proof is in the "authority structure" the "doctrines" and behaviour of the members themselves, this has been well documented so the criticism is credible and so are the people.

The statement "engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet" is talking about Ken Haining and Neil Taylor who both were potters house pastors and they were involved in yahoo discussion groups. The same person making the accusation also has over the past years used many mutliples user names as well on his groups, so that is not evidence one can use against someone else. The claim they called the said user a homosexual was not true and the said user also has many more times spoken much slander against these men who are ex-pastors of his church fellowship. The said user is the one with the hidden agenda, to discredit anyone who makes valid objections against his church fellowship.

The statement apologetically put "which are not in and of themselves improper, are partially to blame for the negative reactions of those not used to such methods" should be reworded to inform the public of the actual facts with "authority structure" and "discipleship/sheparding" somewhere in there. I suggest also to mention that the preaching of the church is also apart of the criticism as well and I ask that the firstplumbline provide this proof on this section of the article.

I have stated with good and fair reasons to edit "criticism of the church", please state your reasons why not to, with factual evidence to back up "claims" of "deception" of "small in number" that misrepresent the current status of the section. I will be proposing the editions within a couple of weeks after careful consoltation with other users. Please add your comment and together we can redo this section fairly according the correct facts of the matter within a NPOV, thank you.Darrenss 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I requested that you read the mediation and the previous talk on this very subject so that we are not going over and over old ground. The inclusion of poor quality links has been discussed in great detail. Formerly I proposed to include ALL links both for and against, but Rick Ross' friends concluded that the site (made by my former friend Neil Taylor) was of poor quality. My previous argument was that the anti Potter's House sites are of much less quality than the anti Ross site and therefore should also be included. After much discussion we came to a compromise, allowing only quality links. You obviously haven't read the threads or are choosing not to. Please read them and comment on the previous discussions. Potters house 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize links in discussions. Everyone is entitled to bring up links to support an argument in a discussion. --Tilman 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have at least 6 links that are not on the article which prove the above opinions to be false. I was not allowed to include these links in the article previously because the links were not deemed good quality links. For some reason I was allowed to include a link and few sentences about the Slam the Door group to remain. I can understand why that might be removed, but if there is going to be an inclusion of the links that Darrenss requests, then to be fair, the other links I was previously disallowed to put up should also be permitted. Also I propose that Darrenss become more aware of the volume of information written about the above incidents in previous mediation. It is a waste of time discussing things that are elementary to those who have read the mediation and until he understands the issue in detail it is just a waste of time responding to him.

Also the reason I altered the links was because Darren is boasting that one of the primary reasons he is on Wikipedia is to bring the links up higher on Google:

If you read this link you will see his true motives http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7858

He also claims I have a boyfriend (i.e. that I am a homosexual) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7845 Potters house 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was also forbidden to include links on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Potters_house&diff=63427946&oldid=63356998

I will put the links back up seeing that Darren is alowed to have links that slander me. Potters house 05:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm not an admin and I don't really want to play judge here, besides, I am a cult critic myself. So my advice is worth nothing :) But I've got other cults to criticize, so I want "peace" here. Nick kept his part of the "deal", which gives him a slight advantage.

Nick, I reverted your link changes because it looked like vandalism.

Don't worry about that links on wikipedia improve the page rank. I doubt that this applies to links in discussion pages.

My suggestion to Nick: 1) You don't link to rrexposed on your user page. It is a smear site. 2) You can alter any actual link here (on this discussion page) that smears YOU and I won't revert it. (WP:NPA) 3) You don't alter a link that criticizes your group or your leader. You don't alter a link that links to a "deep" link that smears you.

My suggestion to Darrenss: 1) You don't post links that smear Nick, claim he is gay etc. whatever. (I don't say that you did) No personal attacks. It also doesn't help your cause if you do this outside of wikipedia, while mentioning wikipedia. 2) Wikipedia is not a link farm. There is a policy for adding external links. WP:EL. Read it. Read also WP:RS. Wikipedia ist not there to promote your own links. If your link is good, somebody else might add it some day. 3) Read the past discussion, especially what Addhoc has been saying. 4) Please understand that the critic section has five (!) links to critic sites. That is pretty good. Yes, there is a rebuttal, but it is pretty lame (sock puppets etc), so who cares? 5) You can add criticism, but it has to be sourced per WP:RS --Tilman 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick I am so sick of the silly games you play, when are you going to grow up. It's fine for you to argue with all of us and provoke us and than you turn around and claim I or Ken have said bad things about you, grow up. Firstly people coming on the escape from the fellowship group don't know we are talking about you away. Secondly you are not a spokesperson for the fellowship. Your opinions of the "anti-cfm" or "slammers" is NOT the view of the fellowship but you make people think that it is. Why in the world are you allowed to put http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ as a REFERENCE and an external link?? This site is slanderous and contains no independant references whatsoever. It is nothing but a fan club site that you've made and furthermore contains the most slanderous rubbish against so called "slammers" and "Rick Ross" himself - http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Critics.htm

Now stop using claims of people pursecuting you, this has NOTHING to do with the potters house at all. You dug your own grave when you criticise and slander ex-members of your church. This is what Nick said to Ken recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/6066

Now grow up and let's talk about this section. I will be pushing for changes because your opinion is not the view of the fellowship, Wayman Mitchell wouldn't even have a clue who you are, you're not even a pastor. So just do the right thing and we can get to the business at hand without the mud slinging, thank you.Darrenss 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement about Ian Wilson because he wrote the other book humbly called "Wayman Mitchell" not the open door. Anyway he already left the fellowship last year. Always got the authors confused. Darrenss 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention the term "potters house advocates". Who exactly is this refering to? The potters house members, the pastors or Nick - Potters house??

Can it be proven independantly that the "critics" are small in number, have deceptive tactics etc? The research done on http://www.equip.org/free/DP080.htm in the section "concerns" lists EX-members as one of the objections against the group. Also listed is the authority structure as well. Don't you think this is much more reliable than just taking Potters house word on the matter. After all where are the refences to paragraph 2 of the "criticism of the church" section? Where is the proof to make such bold claims? Somebody please explain.Darrenss 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the link http://www.equip.org/free/DP080.htm is dated now saying silly things like CFM doesn't have a clear doctrinal statement etc, when for 20+ years now Wayman Mitchell the senior pastor of the Fellowship has been recommending the book, the Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, and most CFM sites have doctrinal statements. Their concerns over tongues etc, are the same with the any Pentecostal Church, as with their critical view on healing. So much of the article is not about the Potter’s House per se but about Pentecostalism. Like I said, I don't mind having any view linked to as long as there is also permission to link similar pages that show the other side of the story. The problem is that people like Rick Ross and friends don't want links to sites that expose Ross and Co. So here we have a dilemma. Darrenss wants freedom of speech as I also do, but are currently being restricted because of certain Wikipedia criteria - poor quality links. Darrenss should be restricted on for the same reasons, unless the other links such as the Anti Rick Ross sites are permitted also, otherwise the site should remain where it currently is, because if you read through Darrenss' history his SOLE purpose for being in Wikipedia is to defame the church. I think that should be also taken into consideration.

Some sites that Darrenss wants to link to are by people who have made claims that I am a Homosexual and have left the Church. Darren also recently claimed that I have a boyfriend http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7845 and that the sole reason for being on Wikipedia was to have his favorite links be dragged up in the search engines http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7858 . So dispite the fact that he is basically slandering me, there is also the previous issue that had been discussed indepth in the mediation. Much of what Darrenss proclaims are "unvarified claims" are spoken about in the talk of the mediation. Perhaps he is just ignoring it. I actually thought that it was sorted out but someone said recently that it was never a closed case. It is hard when you appeal to Wiki "staff" for help and something like that was never finalised. But in order to defend myself from slander I would prefer to mediate again.

Anyway cheers! Potters house 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read the mediation but like I said I wasn't there the first time. I am well within my rights to bring up this issue again. Nick stop pasting shortcuts to conversations from the yahoo groups. You have said worse things than me. I want the truth to be stated here not your personal views. You paste links to sites you yourself have created and think they are evidence somewhat.

Stop making personal attacks against me, you've provoked me over and over and then claim what I say about the potters house is all lies because of our own disputes. Well that has nothing whatsoever to do with it and I ask you to talk about the potters house page and refrain from attacking me. I can chat with my friends on escape from the fellowship and I don't need your permission do I? I'm still going to suggest changes you have no "proof" to your defence in this section so I will be suggesting changes. Whether you like it or not, its about the truth of the situation not your personal views. You don't own the article do you? Certainly not. RegardsDarrenss 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potters_House author uses his own sites

I just want to mention, that user user:Potters_house is using his own personal links for evdience. The so called IP scam that people are accused of is not true. Why can the user have his own personal links on this article? As I mentioned before Nick has spend years slandering ex-members and now brings his attitude to this article. Why are the links to anti-Ross sites here as well? Should that information be listed on Ross's on wikipedia page? Rick Ross has nothing to do with the article, so why is it necessary <?> the sites aren't even neutral but are written for the purpose of defaming the indiviuals.

Can someone again look at http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ it is Nick's own private site and contains slanderous attacks against Ross and ex-members of the potters house. Currently it is being used as a reference and external link. The site contains no official independant webmaster and try looking for the name of the owners of the site? ThanksDarrenss 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove where any infomation if deemed false I will remove them myself. Like I said, we should mediate, but you continue to gnaw at old bones. Please state exactly where the infomation is false! Potters house 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick you are totally missing the point. There is one else on the planet that even makes these claims against so called internet IP scams, just you. Furthermore as I understand you were one of the ones that was fooled by it. This is what Ken says happened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/8017 This is what Nick says happened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slamthedoor_frauds/

But no one can get an independant view of it because the sites are gone. Now WHY is it even relevant?? Please explain why? We are talking about 1 or 2 people. I've never been involved in any so called scam, 10 others I know haven't either. The news reporters covering potters house special reports haven't, newspaper reporters haven't, on the percentage of those who have left the fellowship what are we talking about? Just 1 or 2 people, Nick. Why is it relevant? Should the actions of 2 people be even mentioned? Nick this is not a potters house criticism issue just another one of your smear projects which has been successful for a while but contains no importance to support even a mention. Its totally irrelevant. I ask anyone please consider this, if I left the church and joined the mormons could you claim some statistic or percentage of ex-members have joined the mormon church because of just me? Certain not and the same is true with so called internet scams. Its not even important to make any news but Nick makes a big deal out of it.

This whole sentence is based on this accustion of Nick regarding this issue. "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet." Why does it get a mention? It is totally irrelevant to the subject. I hope I have illustrated this point. It might be true but there are 2 sides to this accusation and the other side is not even told, so why even mention it. I submit to remove the sentence completely.Darrenss 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the mediation? You are just revamping old issues here. I was not the one that exposed the IP scam on the internet, there were at least three others involved, I mearly state that it DID happen (which ALL parties admit to execpt you - being a newbee and not knowing the subject thouroughly) and also that I have been called a homosexual and claims have been made that I have left the church. You seem to be disassociating yourself with the Slam the Door members, but Ken Haining, who is the main player behind the IP scandal runs the link you are promoting. The other link is to a group started by Neil Taylor who was exposed pretending to be my ex-girlfriend and also claiming that I had homo-erotic desire towards him (he said this under another username). You seem to deny that these things even happened, or that the groups are slanderous. You recently said that I had a boyfriend (refering to Tilman) and that you were only using Wikipedia to promote your slanderous links. I grow tired of repeating myself. I suppose people also deny that the holocaust happened, but you are the first to deny that the IP scandal NEVER happened. Stangly in the next breath you say that I was decieved by it and you give links? How can I be decieved by something that never happened? Potters house 03:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it even relevant? The language you use such as "scam" and "frauds" is silly. Did they break the law? What scam? What were they doing and what was the aim of the so called scam? Frauds? What did they try to gain illegally? They certainly didn't break any laws or even breach yahoo's code of conduct or pratice. But this isn't the place to conduct the trial of Ken Haining is it? Even if Ken or an ex-member of the potters house break the law in any way, why is it relevant to the rest of the ex-members, the news articles, cult-awareness groups. Why is it relevant to the potters house? If Ken went to your house and said "BOO" to your cat why does it affect the potters house? Is it news worthy? Certainly not.

Nick do you admit that your problems with Ken Haining or even myself is personal and doesn't directly relate to the potters house at all? You are a zealous member of the fellowship and in your zeal you have certainly provoked ex-members to anger haven't you? Now can I ask, if Nick you are on the yahoo group slandering me, can I not say that because you are abusive that is certainly proof the the potters house is abusive? If not why not? Because one person doesn't reflect upon a whole group, tribe, fellowship, nation. Get my point.

Now why is it relevant to mention your own personal attacks against Ken Haining as some facts to use relating to the potters house in general? Please answer the question.

This is the disputed sentence from "criticism of the church" regarding this issue: "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet." Darrenss 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The disputed sentence is an example of weasel words creeping in to the article. Such a sentence needs to be linked to a reputable source, not just an online chat room. If Potter's House has any official documentation online where this sort of thing is talked about then it should be linked and the sentence included. Without an external link the sentence should be removed. See WP:WEASEL --One Salient Oversight 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for checking. To my knowledge there is no published information the potters house "officials" have released regarding their position against ex-members or critics. If you don't mind me saying, should there be a criteria on "WHO" can make a qualifified statement as a representative of the potters house eg a spokesperson? Otherwise all we have is unqualified members of the church speaking on behalf of the entire (he says 1400 churches of 100,000 members) fellowship. The same goes for the "reference" websites used by Potters house. He has already said before that he threatened to invent a website to put up that would be the "truth" about Rick Ross and link them to the article. Such ideas should be viewed as being at the bottom end of the academic spectrum surely. This is what I believed has happened in his article on critics - [18]Darrenss 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please edit the changes. It is a little complicated for me to do. Thanks.Darrenss 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed sentances and references links

These 2 sentances are irrelevant: "Potter's House advocates dismiss the critics' claims as unfounded. They suggest that critics are non-credible, small in number, and highly vocal. Rick Ross is a controversial figure himself and has attracted criticism.[14] [15] [16] [17]"

"Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet."

Also these links containing references are of little importance and relevance and should be deleted from the article itself.

12 ^ rickross.com about Christian fellowship churches

13 ^ A critical site exposing Rick Ross and his attack on fundamentalist Christians

14 ^ The Potter's Club's critique of Rick Ross

15 ^ Potter's House forums about Rick Ross

16 ^ Apologetics Index critique of Rick Ross

17 ^ Cult Awareness Network's critique of Rick Ross

18 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on allegations of 'puppeteering' by critics

19 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on multiple I.P scam

20 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on multiple I.P scam

Criticism of Rick Ross is irrelevant to the subject and the multiple ID scam is a smear project pushed by Potters house and contains no valid usage that it should directly relate to the Potters House. Please check this. I've asked the user for an explaination on how the so-called ID scam is relative to the issues and so far got no response.Darrenss 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, the Rick Ross issue needs to be addressed in the article, but probably in only a minor way. There should not be more than one external link to a critique of Ross. If people want to know more then they should go to the Rick Ross article, where all of the external links you mention should be available. --One Salient Oversight 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Darrenss 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checking the discussion page here, Rick Ross has already been a major topic of discussion. I'm happy if you drop Ross altogether. If you put Ross in than Nick will put anti-Ross links or statements. This is the history of the discussion. In the "LINKS" section of this page Nick said this:

"Fine forget it, I am tired of your rating and missing the point and blindly supporting ross but rejecting me. Have the link - i.e. you win. I have started on http://www.newsau.com and will continue to build it until it is the biggest site of reference for Rick Ross, oh and mine has a disclaimer too, so please don't accuse me. I have access to 112 web pages that I can put the link on staight away. This will be next to the actual RickRoss.com site in google soon" (Potters house 05:22, 15 August 2006 )

I there are plenty of professional critics of the potters house besides Ross. I suggested before using a current up to date site run by an independant group - http://www.firstplumbline.net/html/thepottershouse.html what's your thoughts? The Ross issue could go round the merry go-round forever.Darrenss 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the "dubious" comment as per wikipedia policy in relation to the sentences as regarding the issue as stated in the section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement ThanksDarrenss 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Potters House has inserted false information

In response to the criticism leveled by Enroth and Charisma magazine, User:Potters house has inserted a number of quotes by Wayman Mitchell that respond to this criticism.

The problem is simple - the quotes were completely fabricated.

The book "In Pursuit of Destiny" could not be found through any internet search of either its title or its ISBN number. Click here for the Google search of "In Pursuit of Destiny" + wayman and you will discover that the internet knows nothing of this book except for Wikipedia and associated websites. If you look on the google for the ISBN number 0-9699777-1-9 you get even less results, and only those from Wikipedia. A look through various book respositories from the Wikipedia ISBN searching meta page can be found here, sufficed to say that the book is unknown to internet book sellers and even the library of congress.

Secondly, and most stupidly, the date for the book's publication was given as 1996. Yet we are led to believe that this very book contains a quote in reference to a Charisma news report that occurred in 2002.

I will therefore be calling upon Administrators and those in power to ban User:Potters House as soon as possible. --One Salient Oversight 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

The book may exist. But the quotes are most definitely fabricated. --One Salient Oversight 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can evidence of the book's existence/quotes be produced here? Failing that the reference and accompanying ontent will need to be removed. Sfacets 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Books DOES exist and the quotes are direct. Also where I said "Mitchell commented on the criticism from Charisma News and CRI in a statement in his official biography" never alludes to the article written in 2002, but to previous dealing with the organisation. Please before you futher delete sections or make unfounded claims, do your homework. Even Darrenss will attest to the existance of the book and the quotes in it. Just because you hate the church and have a personal bias against Pentecostals, does not give you the right to make slanderous accustaions. The date of the book makes it clear to anyone that it was previous to 2002. In your hurry to defame the church, please get your facts straight. A simple 'sorry' would also be nice for saying I am I fraud! Potters house 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall I scan in the first few pages for you? Potters house 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Published in 1996 - Northstar Advertising 40 Bell Farm Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4M 5L3 Printed in Canada. Potters house 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're asking me to verify it? You must be joking. So what will you do Nick? Scan the book (which is unverified and unrecoverable through any internet search or online content) into your OWN site http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ and hope it gets accepted as legit. I've mentioned before that http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ is your own site where you draw facts from in the potters house article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Mitchell. How easy is it to "create" the facts you want to prove as being true by putting them on your own website and quoting yourself. Can someone check the waymanmitchell.com site and see that I'm telling the truth, judge for yourself.Darrenss 09:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there were several books that were released as "in house" stuff for the potters house members especially pastors. Maybe thats why it cannot be found on the net or through any distributor that is easily found. Working in the christian wholesale business myself I know it wouldn't be available as a general public "retail" item. It would be a hard to find category and be considered a "rare" book. Most certainly it would be "out of print" anyway. You definately won't find a copy through any normal means. Hope that helps. Darrenss 09:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, books like "An Open Door or" "Blueprint from Heaven" etc are not my works, so reguardless of my website status, the info is not mine. Secondly, the Bio is usually on sale at Peth Conference, along with, "We Can Take the Land", and others. Most people in our church have this book. I find it hard to believe that you have never heard of it, exspecially when you have mentioned it before in yahoo groups on Fri Sep 22, 2006: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/3809

I wish that you would 'contibute' to the article and not try to tear down. I forgive you for your dishonesty, and I hope all things work out for you. God Bless.

Eventually this book will be online, but until then One Salient Oversight needs to check his facts, and Darren needs to be a bit more helpful. Potters house 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't "does it exist" but the availibilty and access of that information. I said "in house" much like the "watchtower" publication the JW use. I should know the difference I do work in the field as you well know. How will it be made available exactly? You are going to do it yourself right? So far as I know that will not meet wikipedia standards. You can't just point to your own material as evidence, someone independant must "host" that information. Do you understand? This isn't a primary school project, people need factual verifiable sources, if you put that information up (on your own site) everyone still must "take your word for it" and we'd be back to square one again. Right? Can't you see how stupid this is? Darrenss 11:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really seeing that you quote from the book I assume you own it, therefore I see it that you are just being difficult. But that's fine, I am used to it. The book is freely available. Strange the Koorong bookstore where you work promotes Benny Hinn sell books by Tommy Tenny, Copeland and other heretic and yet you wonder why Mitchell's Bio isn’t mainstream enough to be sold by your organization. BTW the Watchtower is freely available in most parts of the world so I can't see what you are actually alluding to, except that you desire for people to think that the J.W.'s and CFM have some common grounds in the sale of this book. I don't know where you are going with all that, but just for the record the book is scanned here: http://www.fxau.com/Mitchell_1.JPG http://www.fxau.com/Mitchell_2.JPG Kevin Northcott has this on his site! I hope God blesses you abundantly Darren. Potters house 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Every discussion I have with you here, you seem to always attack me, or things I am involved in. Its not available at Kongrong because 1. Its not important 2. The writers are unknown 3. The publishing company is unknown. 4. It wouldn't sell. 5. No one really cares. 6. Potters house is so small in comparison to church groups that it won't warrant a mention. 7. The books are outdated.

No I don't have a copy. I don't know where I got that from where I quoted it on the yahoo group. Yahoo is not wikipedia. No one would be able to check whether I was right or not anyway. I could have said "Mitchell smokes big long cigars" and no one would be able to verify that anyway. See the point?Darrenss 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Anyhow I have started to scan the book in anyway. Thanks for the inspiration to do it, or else I probably wouldn't bother. http://www.waymanmitchell.com/In_Pursuit_Of_Destiny/

I am not atacking you, I just wonder about your motives sometimes. Anyway, today is a new day, Jesus forgave people and requires us to also so lets just shake hands forgive each other and move on! Cheers! Potters house 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ is in violation to copyright laws. You don't own the rights that you can do anything you want to the book,neither does anyone else. Furthermore the book itself cannot be used as a reference if it cannot be reproduced in a public forum for sale.

Anyhow you need to realise there is a difference between a "print" company and a "publishing" company. I noticed you said this: ":::Published in 1996 - Northstar Advertising 40 Bell Farm Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4M 5L3 Printed in Canada."

This is a printing company I think. I couldn't find any website to verify it though. Can you produce the website so I can have a look?

Also there are differences in quality, rights and access to"printed" books than "published" retail books. 1.Quality control

2.Reviews from professionals for the public to see

3.Official vs unofficial Darrenss 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that infomation Darren, see it is not that hard to 'help' in Wikipedia! Potters house 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just copy a whole copyrighted book onto you website. I couldn't find anywhere on the net "Blueprint from heaven". But to copy it onto your site isn't going to make the quotes any more valid. Please acknowledge some laws apply in which you may be in breach of. It will not pass wikipedia policy. http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/postmaterials.htm Darrenss 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also just for the record, I don't manage or run the two yahoo groups exposing the IP scams. A guy from the US and Kevin Northcott do. Kev is a friend of mine, but in no way have I even told him to put ANY material up about the scam. He just felt compelled to do so. I have added posts to the groups and that is all. So to say that only I am saying that there was a scandle is false. Potters house 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo groups are such that cannot be used for quotes or proof. Even if someone else ran the site (Kev goes to your church anyway doesn't he?) there's no way to prove it either way. Please remove any reference to the so-called yahoo slammers scam. If a potters house "official" representative would make an "official" public statement regarding "slammers" and "scams" (Wayman Mitchell for example would be a good "official) than you can quote him. So far its been a few members like yourself causing trouble which hasn't got anything to do with the potters house in general. I will be checking over the next week to see if you find the right sources for this accusation, otherwise it will be removed completely.Darrenss 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you yourself are striving to include 2 yahoo groups, don't you think that your statements show a consistency in what you deem as worthy material to produce a neutral wikipedia article? Potters house 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I've not included any yahoo groups as statements, that is a lie. I have the group listed as ex-members of the potters house thats about all. I suggest you get your facts right.Darrenss 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But according to your own logic, how do we know for sure that they are ex members, I mean you seem to make out as if I am just making the whole thing up, but couldn't they also be doing the same, according to your conclusions? Or am I the only nasty person on the internet? Potters house 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable third party sources

There are very few third party reliable sources in the article, in fact several are not acceptable, such as the links to the Yahoo groups webpage. Please refer to Wp:RS and comment. Sfacets 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of my contributions to refs and citations are Wikipedia:Convenience links i.e. not my own work, but added to a site for quick reference. Like the previous debacle about the quotes from Mitchell and Charisma Magazine, it was assumed that I was making them up by User:One Salient Oversight and I was referred to be banned by him for fraud. However, if One Salient contacted his local Potter's House church in Newcastle and requested a copy of the book on loan, he would have realized that the quotes were genuine. I only have Wikipedia:Convenience links because of the suspicious claims made against me and the church such as that. If there is a conflict of interest, I know 10 people who will gladly host and edit a similar page that will not have my input, save the inclusion of scanned material from Potter's House literature and sermons. Potters house 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP scams and internet accusations are irrelevant to Potters House

This topic has been brought up before and user:Potters_house did not comment on the discussion so he has no right to revert my revision. If there was any "IP scam" or some yahoo group fraud the original information has been deleted and the sites no longer exist. At any rate, there is no record anywhere by any Potters House offiicals that they were threatened by any type of yahoo scam or fraud. Therefore the only course of action is to delete any references until some reliable and independant sources can be sited. A reliable source must also have nothing to do with user:Potters_house as he is the only one making the accustion. If there was any "official" statement released by Potters House spokesperson (eg. Wayman Mitchell, Harold Warner, David Vicary, Nigel Brown) than the information is irrelevant until proven otherwise.

Therefore statements linked to this accusation will also be deleted immediately. Please state your case here or otherwise leave the article alone. Thank you.Darrenss 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz is based in the UK.

http://www.pottersclub.com/Rick_Ross.htm is owned by Kevin Nothcott

http://www.forumsau.com/ owned by Kevin Nothcott

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/130-rick-ross is Run by the apologeticsindex.org group

http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/dbase/bios/rross.html is run by Cult Awareness Network

So why do you continue to delete the links? For a new member of Wikipedia, you are showing strong bias. I strongly suggest that if you want you barrow pushed that you mediate. Potters house 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, NONE of the links he is deleting have anything to do with the IP scams. I can't figure out where you are coming from. Before you fruitlessly delete more links from the article, please seek mediation. Your sole purpose in being on Wikipedia is to vandalise this page. Your "demands" that I talk about I.P. scams etc have nothing to do with what you are deleting. I know all about the scams, so do about 100 other people, all except you Darren! I wonder if you understand that it is rather strange also that you side with known slanderers of which anyone can see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/1

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/2

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/5

Ken Haining who runs Escape from the Fellowship, which you are trying to get linked to here, runs that site. He also said on another group;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/4252

You need to spend some time looking into the matter before you comment on it. Potters house 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not at all tried to get http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/ linked to the article as "evidence" to be a "reference" from the main article but you are trying to do just that, do you see the difference? See my user page states "talk with ex-members". At any rate the references to "IP SCAM" will be deleted unless you have "official" comments from fellowship "spokespeople" (eg.those that are in commmand or in high positions, not yourself or your friends). Also ALL yahoo groups (including mine and yours) will NOT be displayed on the main article at all. So you agree with those conditions?

Secondly the whole Rick Ross issue should be addressed as well. So far you have been a major pain on both this article and Rick Ross's article as well. At any rate this article is not the place for you to launch your attack against Rick Ross. So I will remove all "your" sites you want to use against Mr Ross (references) and we will limit Ross criticisms to one site only. You have already shown you intend to "invent" a site to slander Mr Ross, so I don't think it is right for you to continue your attacks against him in this article. Please go to Ross's article for your comments and views to be included there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29

Don't go accusing me of vandelism, I'm trying to work this out with you. Don't revert either untill you can show better evidence on this subject, if you want mediation go ahead but I'm deleting "IP SCAMS" and ROSS slander until mediation arrives. Thank you.Darrenss 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/1 this yahoo group is a different one from the SCAM or IP FRAUD? What are you trying to prove exactly? It has nothing to do with the Potters House and irrelevant to the article. Darrenss 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so now you are demanding that I agree with you, what a joke! I can't see exactly what your case is, you seem to be confused. If you want to contine lets mediate (as I have said from the beginning and over 20 times now), that is Wiki policy. You have got to make a discision. I am not interested in what you think about Ross, but Ross is an avid critic of the fellowship, thus it is helpful for people to understand why a Potter's House member would reject his claims. Also you seem to have totally missed my last post and went and deleted links that you have no idea about and still claim they are to do with the IP scam, then you claim that I am not being co-operative. Reguarding the pottershouseclub group run by Ken Haining, would you not agree that it is soley a slander group - thus Ken who runs Escape from the fellowship is a slanderer. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, you may need professional help! Potters house 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not agree to the "IP SCAM" charges as being relevant to the article. It has nothing to do with the Potters House. Furthermore I raised the point earlier that much criticism comes from ex-members, I'm glad now you agree with me on that. Its not just Ken Haining but there must be about 6 yahoo groups set up by ex-members, so I'm glad now you are admiting your error. There is no reason however to single Ken Haining out though, you have personally atacked the man for years. That is an issue between you and him, not the potters house in general. Again, produce an independant article not written by yourself or your friends on the "SLAMMERS". The potters house aren't even aware such a title exist but you have invented it all by yourself. Again thats your own personal problem nothing to do with the potters house. Cite some "official" news released by Wayman Mitchell or Harold Warner on the "slammers" not your own personal sites which you yourself have written and given as a reference. As for Rick Ross criticisms should be keep to a minimum as was already discussed earilier but you refused to join the conversation then.

I agree to mediation sure but I will continue to delete irrelevant material as I believe it is.Darrenss 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Slam the Door was the most vocal group on the internet against the Potter's house. The people who most frequently posted there have been exposed as liars and slanderers. This DOES effect the image of the church. The people who frequenly posted there were busted for using multiple usernames to decieve people and to also boost the numbers in their group to 900. You obviously have no idea what happened and even deny that it ever happened. Like I said, I have never met thatsdoctor2u and he runs a group all about it. Also Yadayada who posted on many groups. The 6 or so groups that are anti CFM are the same people who were busted having false names and false CFM group. If you think that that is exposing a church oor that it is ok to slander people Darren you need to check yourself. Ken haining claims Mitchell has whores, that I am a homosexual, and basically slanders anyone asociated with CFM. YOU have a personal agaenda. Just because you dislike CFM because you have become a Calvinist doesn't give you the right to slander me or the church. Ken is a KNOWN slanderer. He admits to it. YOU are saying that he is inocent, and also that the IP scam is not newsworthy. I think I will make a new page all about it, because I am sick of people coveing up things like this. You have an agenda. You are not interested in building Wikipedia but in slandering the Potter's House. You uave publicaly stated your hatred for me in another group. I forgive you, but I hope you stop you deletion spree before you are banned, because you could have something to contribute to wikipedia, if you stopped showing bias. Potters house 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is all your opinion and not proven as fact. Please stick to verifiable facts and not your opinion. Again you are not the spokesperson for the fellowship, show me an official document or news on the subject released by Wayman Mitchell or Warner, Vicary, Brown. Otherwise all you have is your opinion which is not to be accepted as fact. As I said before I'm happy to drop any references to Yahoo groups and IP scams, which will be my main point upon mediation. Your choice. Why you go on about it is beyond me?? Because someone teased you it should be mentioned on wikipedia on the potters house article which has no direct reference with you in particular?? Hardly news worthy.Darrenss 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW can you state for the record whether or not the site the frauds were operating on still exists? Because if it doesn't you don't have a way for people to follow the evidence anyway. How were they exposed? Did they break the law? Did it make national news? Were the "frauds" charged with some crime and fined? What was the official statement from the fellowship regarding the "great internet scam"?? I'd say the charges of "SCAM" and "FRAUD" are highly exaggerated and it didn't have anything to do with the potters house in general. Just a practical joke that you yourself fell for, not exactly an international world-wide conspiracy bearing criminal record and thousand dollar fines. Did I mention user:Potters_house was actually involved and was fooled by the so called scam. It's irrelevant to the Potters house mate so give it a rest.Darrenss 08:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Buy you comments you prove that you have no idea what happened, unless you are just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la la - I am not listening - la la la la."

For the record (which is described in detail in the mediation and in previous discussions) "Slam the Door" was shut down after Ken Haining was shown that all the IP's had been exposed, thus everyones name, address, and personal details were known. Ken was found to be running "the doorcfc" a supposedly Pro - Potter's House yahoo group in which he pretended to be many people. He also would pretend to be church members, pretend to backslide after a while and then leave the church for certain reasons, all with other users (all himself) trying to give advice etc. It was pretty sick stuff really, but the clincher was Neil Taylor who pretended to be my ex-girlfriend and said many slanderous things pretending to known to me, he also deceived his daughter and persuaded her to leave the church by using different people on the crackedpots yahoo group which were all himself. Many examples show both Ken and Neil being different personalities in which they try to deceive people. Most “Slam the Door” people were also scammed. I have ALL the posts in my email account and have compiled some of the worst ones just in case. I think the time has come for a full expose' on the entire episode, whether it is on wiki or not is a non issue. I will demonstrate their wickedness. The slam the door group was also previously linked to until the fiasco. Thus the inclusion of a link that explained what happened.

I suppose then you wouldn't mind if I appeared on a yahoo group as you mother saying all sorts of diabolical things about your homosexuality and how you are a jerk and no good etc. I had to go to great lengths to prove that (She) Neil wasn't my ex. If you think that sort of behavior is not slanderous and the whole thing is not a scam, then I wonder if you have any morality left! You claim to be a Christian and yet support these people? What a joke! Potters house 12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vadalising the article. It does not belong to you and must remain in a NPOV. I have reported you for unruly behavior.Darrenss 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is its your own problem and nothing to do with the Potters House, if someone teased you thats not actual threaten the Potters House in general. There was no SCAM or FRAUD, until you demonstrate actual evidence of illegal behavior threatening the Potters House it is nothing more than your own opinion. Do not vandalise this article, it does not belong to you but is by the co-operation of many editors.Darrenss 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said many times, lets mediate! Your tit for tat attitude is going nowhere. Also as I stated before, you are deleting links that have nothing to do with any IP scams, you don't even know what you are doing. Potters house 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article is now protected. Please discuss and try to find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest this protection, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd say thats a good idea.Darrenss 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the section "Church doctrine", in the second paragraph, there is a sentence in the middle:

Doctrinally evangelical, pretribulationist, and strongly sola scriptura.

Could someone please change the "evangelical" link to be: evangelical

Edit reason: Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!

I realise that the sentence isn't a grammatically correct sentence, and I guess the entire paragraph may be rewritten at some point to flow a little better. But if we can at least get the wikilink fixed, that's a start.

Thanks -- Paddles ^T_C 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect this page, so everyone can edit it again. If the edit wars recommence, it will end up protected again. CMummert · talk 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I've made my change (and also closed a couple of unclosed tags from earlier in the talk page, and made a couple of style edits on the article itself. Paddles ^T_C 13:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third party

I have made some changes to this article, specifically to the Criticisms section. First off, let me say that I have never been involved in the Potter's House, and don't know anyone who has. My edits come as a third party observer, and I hope that has helped me to see things with a more neutral perspective.

Onto the changes. First off, there were a handful of "sources" which simply do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Attribution. For instance, you absolutely cannot cite web forums as a source. They can be linked to from an External Links section, but they are not a reliable source and simply cannot be used in the manner they were being used. The "(new) Cult Awareness Network" is also not a reliable source. It has been taken by Scientologists ever since the (old) Cult Awareness Network went bankrupt and was bought out in 1994.

Secondly, a lot of the focus seemed to be centered on Rick Ross, and the fact that he has archived old news articles on his site, with "defenders" of the movement posting links to (generally unreliable) sources attempting to discredit him. Rick Ross can be criticized, but only because he has done more than simply list newspaper articles on his website. As you will see from the sources I've added to the section, he has publicly (in newspaper articles, on Geraldo's television show, and on 48 Hours) criticized the group, calling it "destructive" and so forth. In response to his remarks, Wayman Mitchell responded, denying the charges and calling Ross a "high paid mercenary." All of these charges by Ross and responses by Mitchell are sourcable because they were made in fact-checked, reliable sources and so (unlike the previous forum links) they can be included. From the perspective of either a critic or current attender of the group, it is a lot more credible (and in line with Wikipedia policy) to lay out criticism of Potter's House or its critics in this manner, rather than including dubious sources.

Now, as far as the newspaper articles Ross has achived: these are in no way to be connected or criticized for the same reason's Rick Ross himself has been criticized. Ross did not write the articles, he merely archived them on his website. While you can question his motivation for archiving them, it's of little importance to this article. I have cited several of the articles he's archived, but the fact that they are archived on his website has no bearing on the validity of the articles themselves. He was in no way responsible for publishing and/or fact-checking them. They could be archived anywhere and it wouldn't matter. The source for the newspaper articles is not Rick Ross' website, it is the newspapers themselves, and newspapers are abolustely considered a Reliable Source.

Finally, let me just say.. Wow, that's quite the flame war that's occurred here! I hope my perspective as an outsider is welcome and we don't end up in the middle of another one. :) Cheers.

Xanthius 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A correction to my last message, I was wrong about being able to include links to forums in the external links section. It's generally Wikipedia policy to avoid linking to forums and blogs altogether. (See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.) Xanthius 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the article has taken a turn for the better. It has been exhausting to try and keep things tidy when at every turn people have not only ignored Wiki policy but have showed deliberate bias. Well done. Potters house 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links vandelism and church doctrine

This is a wikipedia article not an exhaustive list of links to churches. The links I provided have links within themselves such as individual church locations. If people want to find where the churches are they should go to those links. Wikipedia is not here to supply a directory but to provide people with accurate information on the particular subject from a NPOV.

Furthermore I added the CFM statement of faith link so why delete that since it should be there more than others. I added the statement in church doctrine "the church teaches salvation can be lost because of sin", a statement such as this is found on the CFM statement of faith page, I suggest you read it before vandelising the article; Such a statement is very important for people to realise and should be stated. I added firstplumbline which is a professionally run apologetics site containing researched information on the Potters House the same as Rick Ross has.

Refrain from vandelising this article, especially since you are a banned user (Potters House - Nick Sayers) operating under an IP address.Darrenss 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW - This same banned user (Potters House - Nick Sayers) vandelised my user and talk page more than 20 times (!!) last month. Who is the vandel? Darrenss 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church directory

The church directory was there because people like Darren who are soly on wikipedia to smear the Potter's House, kept putting {fact} net to how many churches there were. I had to heep showing them that if they simply couunted the number of churches in the list they would know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.227.185 (talk • contribs).

Bad spelling aside, WP:NOT#DIR - which is official Wikipedia policy - gives good reason for removing what was a directory of links on the page. The above editor is an anon IP which has admitted to being the user behind banned account Potters house (admitted in this diff), who was not surprisingly banned for amongst other things POV pushing in relation to an entity which they have an admitted significant conflict of interest with. Enough said. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, making a list of the known websites of churches does not provide verifiable backup for the number of churches, it just provides a big directory of websites. To provide verification for the number of churches you need a previously published source that actually looks at the number of churches, not simply a listing of websites. Otherwise you are using original research that assumes a) the listing in our article is complete and accurate, and b) all churches have individual websites. This is a poor reason to fill the article up with links in violation of policy. If there are no previously published, reliable claims about how many churches there are then it's not really information that Wikipedia should be covering. -- SiobhanHansa 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link replaced

As I stated before Pottershouseclub is not an official CFM site as it contains no relevant material that provides further reading/information on the topic. I replaced this with the world CFM offical statement of faith page, which would be much more useful and is enforced throughout the CFM churches under Wayman Mitchell's authority.Darrenss 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain??

Why do my edits get reverted as vandelism?? I took hours of my time to find good sources and references. Don't revert back because you don't like it explain your problem and we can discuss it first. You can't remove well sourced material and replace it with no sources and call it vandelism??Darrenss 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I'll let that go but FYI Firstplumbline does not violate copyright law. There are no copyright or royalties on sermons that Potters House have released for FREE public download or ones that were received during conferences/revivals etc. These sermons are released to the public and placing them on any website would not infringe any copyright law , neither does it require permission from the source. As this type of info is part of my job to know, I can make a qualified judgement on the matter. Editing as an IP address to avoid 3 rv's rule is at the very minimum suspicious.Darrenss 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased external links

It seems strange that the AOG page has many many links and yet this page only has a few and most are negative. I think that with the previous debacle concerning subject matter on this page that all links good and bad should be permitted thus allowing a non biased POV for the reader. Sapienz 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A concern over balance is reasonable, but the answer isn't to open the article up to unfettered POV in both directions - We should try to provide a balanced article reflecting the significant POVs of experts in the field, not a directory of links to biased sites. One of the problems with the links here in the past has been that they haven't really been to sites that look at Potters House, they've simply been to Potters House sites, providing no real additional insight into the organization over the main Potters House site, and completely failing to provide critical analysis. These sorts of links aren't really encyclopedic.

We might be able to develop a better article and meet your concerns of bias by considering instead: Are there missing external links (or, better yet, sources) that are positive and look at/report on/analyze Potter's House? What positive information is missing from the article? Are the negative sites of high quality and (criticism by those they target notwithstanding) generally considered reliable for the type of information they present? -- SiobhanHansa 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equipt.org Critics section

I think there is a equipt.org article on the Potter's House but I'm not sure where it is. The same like article are on Cult help and Believersweb. You are welcome to add any of these if you want.Darrenss 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firstplumbline

Added this quality External Link, as it provides current and up to date information on an ongoing basis. Much of the critics sections are older or have not been updated. Firstplumbline does not violate any copyright laws and is run by a professional team from the UK. Do not delete this quality link unless there is more than good reason to. Thank you.Darrenss 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Potter's House sermons are under copyright as far as I can see. Therefore the group firstplumbline is preforming illegal duplication of those tracks. Unless proven otherwise the link should go. Sapienz 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter's House DO NOT copyright their sermons. They have PUBLIC sermon downloads free on the internet with no copyright on them. I suggest you find out what the law is before you claim to know it.

Potter's House by law have to state clearly their copyright on their download pages and they have not. Neither have they bought any rights to prohibit duplication. eg-

http://www.100psi.com/media_downloads_i.html

http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Audio_Sermons.htm (This link must be in major violation in the audio then ??)

http://www.pottershouse.co.uk/resources/Audio-sermons.htm

http://www.pottershouse.com/downloads.asp

So since your information is incorrect and you've not raised any other issue I will place the link back. Thanks anyway.Darrenss 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

People do not have to assert copyright. Under the Berne Convention (now incorporated into the TRIPS agreement) material is automatically copyrighted at creation. Although I notice one of the Potter's House links you provide above does in fact include a copyright statement. Allowing users to download a sermon does not mean the user has the right to redistribute (i.e. make copies - which is what copyright is essentially about). Potter's House would need to release the material into the public domain or under an appropriate license for other people to be able to redistribute them on their own website. -- SiobhanHansa 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The first link you provided is http://www.100psi.com/ which clearly states:

All other unauthorized duplication or electronic transmission is a violation of copyright and other applicable laws. Also © Copyright 2007-2008 - The Potters House, Walthamstow. All Rights Reserved. is on the botton of the uk page. Sapienz 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Straight posting of links to the sermons is also inappropriate from an NPOV perspective - We are an encyclopedia, and this article should provide independent and critical analysis of its subject. Promoting Potter's House message is not a part of a good article. Independent critical analysis (and not hatchet jobs or puff pieces) could be appropriate, but straight linking is not encyclopedic. -- SiobhanHansa 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan is right we better remove all links to inappropriate areas such as sermons. Keep the article NPOV. Good point I must of overlooked that all rights reserved. I thought Potter's House sermons were public domain since they are not developed for commericial use. I'll have to look into that further. All the best.Darrenss 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Under the Copyright law/fair use the Firstplumbline has a disclaimer at the bottom addressing the copyright issue. If you read the US copyright law link I supplied this site is entilted to place the material there without infringing any copyright law. I will place that link back there as per discussed previously. Thank you, all the best.Darrenss 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting up a disclaimer is irrelevant really. It's whether or not they are actually using the link under fair use (which they may be - I've only taken the briefest look at the site). -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case I followed that up and believe they are not in violation of copy due to "fair use" for the purpose of news, criticism, reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In the case of the Potter's House sermons (which was the actual subject of protest), only small clips are used for the purpose of the above mentioned criteria. However the sermon clips are just a fraction of the material they are presenting anyway, which I think is by the far best external link on criticism for this article. I'm just not sure why its a problem, if copy isn't the real issue what is? Darrenss 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless of a disclaimer the Audios are under Copyright - until made public domain, the link should be removed - perhaps contact the Church itself and see if you can get official permission? Sapienz 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Read what is written ok. The disclaimer is meaningless the LAW is what is being followed, regardless of what the disclaimer says (we know that already). You didn't read that under "FAIR USE" they DO NOT break copyright laws, for the purpose of news, criticism, teaching, scholarship, reseach etc they are permitted to have material on their website and NOT violate copyright law. It is not my problem to explain the law, do your own research BUT don't delete things if you aren't sure what you are doing or how the copy law works. The real reason is you don't like that link because they have current material and thorough research and you don't want anyone to know about it or to read the research themselves because you are a member of the Potter's House church. Isn't that true Nick??Darrenss 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For more information on exceptions to copyright you'll find information here. I hope that settles the issue. Thanks.Darrenss 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a complete aside, what other sites do or do not do with copyright is not Wikipedia's business - if they are in violation, they get sued, not ourselves, and our fair use policies are in place to protect Wikipedia. Copyright is only an issue if material from a site is republished here - see Wikipedia's copyright policies for details. I have no opinion about the inclusion or non-inclusion of the link, but could see that this debate is on a matter which is essentially irrelevant. Orderinchaos 04:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Our guidelines and policy both specifically require us to not link to sites that violate copyright. But we are not supposed to be copyright police - we don't need every site that uses copyrighted content in a way that seems to reasonably constitute fair use to have won a court victory before we link to it. -- SiobhanHansa 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conferences

I removed this section because it had no sources backing it up, and generally just seemed like spam. I am noticing that there is a lot of information in this article that remains unsourced, something which should be remedied. Xanthius 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced content

After further review, wow! It's much worse than I thought. This whole article could be broken down into two categories:

Basic information which is unsourced, or sourced by self-published unreliable sources (church websites), and

Sourced information which is critical of the movement.

Okay, are there no positive books, newspaper articles, anything on this group? The clarify wikipedia policy, you need a primary reliable source to back up the information you put into an article. Beyond that you can have secondary sources such as the church websites and so on, but it needs to first be supported by a reliable primary source.

Xanthius 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I share some of your concern about the content but that's not an accurate summary of our policy. Sourcing is currently only covered by guidelines, not policy; primary sources are not required (and secondary sources are frequently preferred); and the church website is a primary source for much information about the church.

I believe you may mean independent sources rather than primary. Our policy only requires that things be verifiable, the reliable source guidelines gives some guidance on how to provide good verification (though WP:ATT is probably a better document to consult nowadays) but the main point is to provide a balanced article reflecting the published opinions of experts in the subject. The church website is a reasonably good source for non-contentious claims like (probably) founding date, who the current leadership is, etc. But for any contentious claim or for an assertion of importance or impact it is only a good source for the church's stated version and should be used in that context. -- SiobhanHansa 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. Take into account the article was started by a member of the church and still is being contributed by a member of the church (Sapienz). Much of what was written (and still is) is hard to verify. I have done my best but I can't find anything more to source any further. It is true that the only positive information on the church is on sites connected or run by the church group themselves, the rest is all negative. Thats what I've found out anyway. For any history/background it is limited to church official sites or counter-cult websites. Thats only what I've found out by doing my own research, if there is other stuff out there I've not found it yet.Darrenss 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:ATT, information in Wikipedia generally needs to be backed up by a reliable source, with minor exceptions. To quote from the top paragraph: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true . . . Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. So while a small uncontroversial tidbit here or there would be okay as long as it wasn't challenged, most of this article contains paragraphs of information that doesn't have a reliable source behind it. That's a problem, but I think we can fix that. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to find a reliable source or two for most of this information from newspaper articles on the group. Apparently founder Wayman Mitchell also has a biography, which might work as the source for some of the stuff here, depending on how it was published, but newspaper articles would be the most reliable way to go. If anyone has any non-critical newspaper articles on the movement they could provide or point me to it would be helpful. Xanthius 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Found a source that mentions the founding of the movement [19] Including it in the first paragraph. Xanthius 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted in interpretation that WP:ATT was pretty much thrown out by the community - consensus does not exist for it, a point which Jimbo himself acknowledged. It has a unique status somewhere between essay and policy, but the WP:RS guideline and the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies have stronger weight. Orderinchaos 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Sayers - Banned user Potter's House, Sapienz and Special:Contributions - 218.214.37.212

It is my understanding that there is a conflict of interest regarding the link

www.waymanmitchell.com and the above editer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.214.37.212

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.214.37.212

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayman_Mitchell

I don't want to make an issue of this Nick but it is firmly established that you are user:Potters House Sapienz and anon 281.214.37.212. Under this anon number you have placed www.waymanmitchell.com in several or more articles and on another anon placed this same link on my talk page. You have stated that you are a contributor to this website which I believe is a conflict of interest. There is no need to have the website in any of the articles except for your own self promotional interest. I have deleted the links of the Potter's House articles for this reason.Darrenss 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those two links came to the attention of the spam task force a while back as the domain names are registered to the same person, who is believed to be a lay church member in Australia. There is no indication they had the backing or support of the church (which has its own websites) and hence fails Wikipedia's external links guideline, which does have a limited scope for primary sourcing of non-controversial or self-identified information but takes a fairly strong line on fan sites (an issue only normally encountered in articles related to music). Orderinchaos 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)