Talk:Bill Gothard

Controversy

Please see WP:NPOV. Gothard is a controversial figure, and much of that controversy centers around his authoritarian teaching, and how that has been applied or misapplied--most specifically under his direct authority and leadership. So the controversies belong to his biography, and not just the organization's article. Please do not remove information simply because it is critical or negative. If it is incorrect, please edit it, but do so in a way that adds detail rather than removes detail. Thanks. --Gandalf2000 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

First, your request that "any" edits be discussed first is absurd. That isn't how Wikipedia works and you know it.

Next, putting uncited (e.g. alleged) sex scandal information about a co-worker and Gothard's brother adds nothing to Gothard's entry. With your logic, we should include the names of every person who has attempted using his teachings and failed. If there is a place for those things, it is on his organization's web site; or better yet, on the individuals' pages and not Bill Gothard's.--Jason Gastrich 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason, thank you for participating. Perhaps you should review the history of this article. Many controversial statements have been deleted without explanation. The controversial statements are substantiated, though I agree citations are thin. It would be better to add a template or do what I did with the sourceless acclamations and endorsements--move the content into the Talk page rather than deleting it. Please remember that it takes effort to summarize and add information to an article, and you're deleting other editors' work with very little respect.--Gandalf2000 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put the controversial information back in, with citations. And please re-read my first statement. I did not ask for discussion of "any" edits first. I asked for discussion about removing content. Making factual corrections or style improvements, as well as adding material, is great.--Gandalf2000 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Acclamations and endorsements

There are no sources listed for the endorsements below. When sources are provided, they can be moved to the article.

Bill Gothard is highly praised by such men as:

• Sam Johnson, U.S. Congressman (Texas) and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel
• Dr. Bill Bright, founder, Campus Crusade for Christ
• D. James Kennedy, senior minister, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
• Adrian Rogers, former senior pastor, Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee
• Dr. Charles Stanley, pastor, First Baptist Church of Atlanta
• Bruce Wilkinson, author of the New York Times #1 best-seller, The Prayer of Jabez
• Pat Boone, entertainer and author
• Dr. Gary Smalley, counselor and best-selling author
• John D. Beckett, chairman and CEO, R. W. Beckett Corp.
• Byron Paulus, president, Life Action Ministries
• Jim Ryun, U.S. Congressman (Kansas)

Merge?

See the AfD discussion [[1]] for a discussion of whether to merge or delete one of the articles.--Gandalf2000 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Link Deletion

Just to explain why I deleted the link to [this] article (linked as "Investigative report of Gothard's Indianapolis Training Center"), it's because [this] other article explains that the charges in the former one are "false, unsubstantiated, and unfounded." Yes, I know that the latter link is from the Institute in Basic Life Principles, the organization charged, but an included PDF from the IBLP site is also there as a signed council resolution for what IBLP is saying. Furthermore, searching the [WTHR] (news station hosting the article) website for many of the key words in the "Dark Secrets" article (such as "Gothard") provides no results, meaning at least that it's not an article that they've continued to hold in their archives (it's also undated).

Hope this is a sufficient explanation for my actions ^^ (I'm still a newbie, so any corrections will be accepted kindly, yes they will!). Thanks, Weien 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• A perfectly reasonable perspective. I'll take a closer look at it, later. My thinking, actually, is that all of this should be merged under a Gothard article. - WarriorScribe 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• This [Midwest Christian Outreach article] provides a middle perspective on this series of events. It is important to recognize that the WTHR article provides very typical examples of many of the objections to Gothard and IBLP, though clearly with a negative POV.--Gandalf2000 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to summarize and include links to both the WTHR article and the city council resolution, which together would provide balanced, NPOV.--Gandalf2000 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• The MCO article indeed speaks from a rather fair viewpoint ^^. But linking to both the WTHR article and the resolution--doesn't the resolution kind of cancel out the WTHR? Or, with that point conceded, would they be presented as a pair, where "WTHR said such-and-such, and in response the city council said such-and-such?" One thought I have been chewing over (but have been too afraid to voice ^^) is possibly creating a "Gothard Controversies" article (linked to in the normal Bill Gothard article), for a tighter presentation of the hotter issues concerning both Gothard and IBLP. After all, from what I see, one of (if not the) main things that those two articles have in common (i.e. overlap) is the controveries and criticism (notice how the "controversies" section of the IBLP article kinda takes over XD). Then again, there are many in favor of deleting the Bill Gothard/IBLP articles altogether, so I think the last thing they want is another related article. Ideas?

Anyway, thanks both of you for your thoughts. Weien 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum, I agree that this episode is a good illustration of the controversy(ies), and MCO summarizes the issues quite well.

To address your other point, I think these two articles are progressing quite well. There is a summary of issues on Gothard's page, relating to him as a central figure, and more details on the IBLP page. I think the normal editing process will take care of it, without any drastic reorganization or restructuring. Of course, if someone with a boatload of relevant information wants to add to the pages, that's great, and may justify overhaul, but I think the AfD and merge suggestions are completely unnecessary.--Gandalf2000 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

True enough; though it might need at least a semi-significant amount of "the normal editing process" to make Bill Gothard look like less of a monster that everyone hates (rather than simply a controversial figure in the Christian world). At least, that's being said as almost every section in the article has something to say along the lines of his controversies and criticisms (including the summary). And correct me if I'm wrong, but the IBLP page seems to follow a similar pattern. On the bright side, the "See Also" section doesn't mention any scandals at all ;). Anyway, sorry about the rant... hopefully I'll be able to justify it by adding some relatively tame information to these pages in the future. And again, thanks for your replies (let me know if I'm getting out of line!). Weien 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thought--since the AfD discussion has been concluded, does that mean that the flags for merging are still inherent? Weien 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mergers

Whereas the vote is over and the article survived, it is time to discuss the two proposed mergers. Harvestdancer 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvestdancer, if we add substantially to both the Bill Gothard and IBLP pages (resulting in two related but distinct articles as opposed to two articles both focusing about the IBLP/Gothard controveries) in the mid-future, would that warrant that the two articles remain separate? Or would a merge still be in order regardless? But regarding the Forty-nine character virtues article, perhaps it could just go altogether, or work better as part of Character First! (a new article, see discussion at bottom of the article's talk page). Weien 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As I and others argued in the AFD, both Gothard and the Institute are notable just as both Pat Robertson and the 700 Club are notable. However, I like the idea of merging the Forty-nine virtues article somewhere, either to Bill Gothard or Character First!--DDerby-(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping both the IBLP and Bill Gothard articles separate, although I am open to the Forty-nine character virtues being merged into IBLP.Dick Clark 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Gothard and Institute. Delete "virtues" article and put link on Gothard page for interested parties. The reader gets a better idea of the facts when the articles are contextually connected-- merged. There is not enough information to warrant separate articles and contain the same information. Arbustoo 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate Gothard and IBLP articles. Merge 49 character virtues into IBLP or delete and link to external source.--Gandalf2000 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Gothard and IBLP are essentially one and the same. Gothard has absolute control over IBLP, IBLP is based solely on Gothard's interpretation of Scripture, and outside of IBLP Gothard is not otherwise noteworthy. Quidam65 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge for same reasons given by Arbustoo. Vivaldi (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Megachurches?

What "megachurch" has Gothard pastored? How id this category applicable here? I'm removing the uncourced supposition. Dick Clark 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the biography section, "Since then the Basic Youth Conflicts grew and attendance averaged between 10,000 and 20,000."' Arbustoo 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They are seminars or workshops, though, not "churches." These are very different things. A church has members who regularly attend worship, generally at a particular place of worhip, and has a hierarchy of pastoral staff (sometimes this does not hold true, although it almost certainly would for any "megachurch"). These seminars were not designed to take the place of the attendees' regular church activities, but rather to supplement them with relatively short, (usually) one-time workshops. Dick Clark 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) is a Christian non-profit organization...

If the Institute is a church (which it does not appear to be), then it could be in the category. Since Gothard is a person, not a church, he should not be in the category. -Will Beback 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it more like a ''para''church organisation? Like Focus on the Family? Or does that designation fill more specific criteria?--EuropracBHIT 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC).

EuropracBHIT: I would say that assessment is pretty accurate. IBLP does not purport to be a "primary provider" of worship services, fellowship, etc., such as a "church" would. Rather, IBLP is an organization that provides training which is designed to supplement (not replace) the activities at the local church level. Dick Clark 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas A. Hill

I edited the brief description of Mr. Hill. Previously, this article referred to him as an "oil tycoon", a term that generally refers to someone who owns oil fields or production companies or both. Mr. Hill is the retired chairman of a company that makes supplies for oil and gas pipelines. They are a manufacturing company, and therefore Mr. Hill is no more an oil tycoon than Bill Ford, Jr. (For the record, Mr. Hill is an acquaintance of mine. He lives in my neighborhood and I used to do contract work for his father-in-law, who co-founded the company we are talking about here.) - JimMiller 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil tycoon was a quote from the source. Arbusto 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk reversion of improvements June 8, 2006

I made a number of improvements and additions to this article which user FeloniousMonk has recently reverted by saying "whitewash POV" or something similiar. He advised me to discuss my changes on the talk page, which I will do, but I intend for FeloniousMonk to explain his deletion of information from this article as well. It is unfair that only I should be participating in these discussions, while FeloniousMonk sits on a big revert button, erasing lots of hard work and verifiable information that improved the article.

I improved the article thusly:

1. Originally there was a sentence that read: "His solution to family and youth problems is a conservative, some argue ultraconservative, view of family life" This sentence doesn't even make sense. How can a "view of family life" be a "solution to family and youth problems"? Also, including the term ultraconservative with conservative in the same sentence, when both wikilinked terms lead to the exact same article is silly. I changed this sentence thusly: "His views on how to handle family and youth problems are considered very conservative." My sentence actually make sense and still leaves the reader with the notion that Gothard is on the more conservative side of the spectrum without using biased terms such as "ultraconservative".

2. The article used to have this sentence: "Yet, critics of Gothard and IBLP believe that it is authoritarian and legalistic in nature, and that he does not always "practice what he preaches".. I changed this to read: "However at least one critic of Gothard believes that his views are too authoritarian and legalistic in nature, and some critics have even accused Gothard of hypocrisy." There is only one critic that was cited that wrote that Gothard's view are too authoritarian and legalistic in nature. Really there is only one citation that shows that Gothard was accused of not always "practice what he preaches", so perhaps even my version leaves the reader with an undue idea that there are numerous critics of Gothard that have stated that he was a hypocrite. Using terms like, "Critics say" are weasel words that should be avoided. We should specify exactly who these critics are, especially since it appears as though the number of cited critics of the man is approximately 2 people.

3. I also made a number of improvements to the references section and in the article itself where blank references to web pages were left with no "ref" tags to explain who or what the person is that made the claim. I also named some references so that they could be reused, since there was duplication in the references section and a single reference was being used for numerous claims in the article.

4. I did a major improvement to the controversies and criticism section. I explained that Gothard is being criticized mainly by two seperate small groups that print quarterly religious journals about groups they believe to be cultic in nature. These groups are primarily the work of a few individuals and these two groups cannot be said to speak for the "evangelical" movement or even a significant portion of that movement. The two quarterly journals are not widely read well-respected journals in the field of religion. They are not peer-reviewed. Using them as sources for information presents problems with reliable sources, verifiability, and also with the guidelines on how we are to create articles about living persons. However, I am willing to leave the fact that Gothard has been criticized by a few people, but I want it to be made perfectly clear exactly who or what is criticizing him.

5. I removed claims where the only source of information was provided as http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard. This is a personal website that belongs to John & Kathy Beardsley. These people are not qualified to speak on Bill Gothard. According to the policy of WP:V and the guidelines of WP:RS, personal websites such as this are not appropriate to be used as sources for information in an encyclopedia article -- especially for one that is critical of a living person -- for which the guidelines about biographies of living persons says we should take extra precaution to make sure that the claims presented are verifiable. Here is a relevant section from WP:BLP to consider: "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors: The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

I am willing to discuss these issues with the ultimate goal of reaching a consensus or compromise on how to best present the information in this article. Vivaldi (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're free to consider your edits "improvements", but I call them whitewash. FeloniousMonk 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the edits being whitewash they created significant changes in semantics. Saying "I improved this", "I improved that" is subjective, and such comments automatically raise people's hackles as they can be seen as insulting to those who wrote the original, and rather arrogant.

Re "His solution to family and youth problems is a conservative, some argue ultraconservative, view of family life" -- this did not need a full blown rewrite that significantly altered the meaning of the sentence. All that was needed was a minor tweak: "His solution... is based on a conservative ... life".

Peer review for religious journals? Religion ain't science.

"We should specify exactly who these critics are, especially since it appears as though the number of cited critics of the man is approximately 2 people", is a specious argument. If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people, would you want refs for all hundred people? That there are only two people referenced merely means that the person who inserted those references felt that two was a represenjtative sample. •Jim62sch• 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying "I improved this", "I improved that" is subjective, and such comments automatically raise people's hackles as they can be seen as insulting to those who wrote the original, and rather arrogant. Subjective statements belong on talk pages. I am giving my opinion. Certainly the goal of every editor should be to improve the article, so every time somebody makes a change, one would imagine that they believe their edits are an improvement. Hopefully I'm not being reverted because I claim that I am improving the article? Vivaldi (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for religious journals? Religion ain't science There exist hundreds of peer-reviewed religious journals. These exist to evaluate the factual claims that are made by other writers and researchers in the field of religion. They can also evaluate the philosophy and the logic used by other religious researchers. And we aren't even talking about "evaluating a religion". These "religious journals" are being used in these articles to make positive assertions that people have committed certain acts or that certain events have happened. Non-peer-reviewed self-published journals by biased sources are not an acceptable place to find this kind of information. They are dubious sources, which need to be avoided in biographies of living people.Vivaldi (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people, would you want refs for all hundred people?. If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people then there would be multiple references that would say he has been criticized by over a hundred different people...or that he as been criticized by a large number of people. My suggestion to specify the actual names and identities of critics is what is appropriate. Please read the style guide Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, where it says, "Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):" and then lists, ""Critics/experts say that..." Then later on the style guide tells us how to deal with such weasel words and specifically gives an example how to change a statement from "Critics say...." to "So and so wrote that...". Now certainly there can be exceptions to this, as the guide suggests, such as when "the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify". But it is clear that the holders of this opinion are absolutely not too diverse or numerous to qualify. Vivaldi (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost completely dumbfounded that an editor of Wikipedia would seek to hide the credentials and identities of the people that are being used to source claims to in the articles. Vivaldi (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you unfairly called my edits whitewash, but you also removed verifiable information in the article because of your biased opinion that criticism of Gothard should be made to look more important and prevelant than the sources indicate. Can you justify the usage of http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard as a source for an encyclopedia article about Gothard while considering the written policy of Wikipedia at WP:V regarding such self-published personal websites from non-notable people? Vivaldi (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Discernment Ministries [2] is a small group, not a personal website; it is perfectly acceptable as a source per WP:V. Biblical Discernment Ministries is reasonably notable, getting 966 google hits [3] and are cited by other Christian groups like biblebelievers.net [4], christianwebsite.com[5], spiritwatch.org [6], and so on.

Since your gutting of the criticisms was based on your faulty interpretation of WP:V and mischaracterization of Biblical Discernment Ministries, it was rightly reverted. FeloniousMonk 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Discernment Ministries [7] is a small group, not a personal website, writes Monk. My reply: BDM is such a small group that they are made up entirely of the works of one man that is self-published on the personal website called at "The Beardsley's Homepage" BDM is apparently comprised of a single man, Rick Meisel, who has authored all of the "exposes" on his website himself. None of his works has been published by anyone other than himself. Rick Meisel is not a notable person himself. He is not a "professional researcher" or "journalist" which would make him eligible for his self-published works to be used as sources of information. Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since your gutting of the criticisms was based on your faulty interpretation of WP:V and mischaracterization of Biblical Discernment Ministries, it was rightly reverted, writes Monk. My reply: I didn't gut the criticisms. I removed those criticisms where the only source was a self-published personal webpage. BDM is not a "group" -- it is a collection of essays by one man. The man who wrote the essays isn't notable and he isn't a respected professional that has had his works printed by other reliable sources. In fact, BDM is a "group" where you can discover such things as: TBN (home to the 700 Club) and Pat Robertson are blasphemers helping spread secular filth, that someone is wearing Hitler’s secret Mormon underwear, that Elvis Presley is burning in Hell (and Billy Graham will be joining him there), and of course that Bob Jones University is anything but a bastion of Bible Christianity. Did you know that Bob Jones allows sodomites to view his collection of blasphemous “sacred art” and sponsors a demonic karate team? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do reliable and reputable sources have to say about BDM and Rick Meisel? How can you consider Meisel to be an expert about Gothard (or really anything at all?) Has Meisel been published anywhere besides his own webpages? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that you have reverted the addition of new information that is verifiable. You are trying to cover up information about the two small groups that have criticized Gotthard -- preferring instead to use weasel words, like "Critics said....". Tell us who these critics are and why they are qualified to talk about Gothard. What are their degrees in? Where have they been published? How many people are involved in their groups? How many people read their quarterly newsletters? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding proper attribution for critical claims

The article used weasel words, like "some critics" and "critics said". I have added information that provides the proper citations for the exact claims made and information identifying the critics that made those claims. It is not appropriate, especially in an article that is a biography of a living person to make these types of poorly sourced claims. This is exactly the kind of article that Jimbo Wales was referring to when he talked about how editors should NOT handle biographies of living people. Vivaldi (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing actual weasel words is one thing, removing properly supported and sourced content [8] is quite another. Deleting the coverage of the sex scandal seems to have nothing to do with fixing weasel words, meaning "weasel words" and "proper attribution" appear to be a pretext for POV deletions. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "coverage" of the sex scandal was published by one man in one book, however in this article it was written about as if it was a factual claim of Wikipedia that these things happened, when it was only an allegation made by this man in his book. All you need to do is properly specify who is making the claims and the authority that they have to make those claims. And again you seem to indicate that you think I have a POV -- which you have also claimed in other places. So again, I will state emphatically that my POV with respect to Bill Gothard is that I do not like him. I do not support his ministry. I am not a Christian. I am not religious at all. My only concern is that Felonious Monk and his very tiny cabal have decided that they can ignore the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia when it gives them a chance to make fun of or disparage people that they don't like -- which in FeloniousMonk's case, involves a number of Conservative Christian ministers. Now I don't like these people either, but that doesn't give FeloniousMonk or myself the right to violate Wikipedia policies in order to defame them with poorly sourced or unsourced claims. Vivaldi (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I find edits like this[9] troublesome. You've had issues with the criticism on the article; why did you move a section out of controversy where he instructs people to pray instead of seek medical help? So I put it back in.[10] C56C 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I find edits by C56C (talk · contribs) like this very troublesome. C56C seems to want to include basic biographical information into a criticism section and then C56C adds information that is unsourced (saying that Gothard distrusts modern medicine) and C56C removed information that shows that the institute actually is run by a medical doctor. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi edit[11] noted he was "reinserting" something, but removed "This should not be confused with a licensed medical school", the cited fact that the MD mentioned has been with Gothard for twenty years before being a board of director, and removed a cited WebMD study. You'd think such details would be important when Gothard is medical advice, but obviously Vivaldi's wants it removed.

$63,000,000 profit?

That seems a little (really much more than a little) high to me. Did the article mean to say income rather than profit? Steve Dufour 06:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a direct quote: "Gothard, the 74-year-old, unmarried man at the head of the Oak-Brook, Illinois-based Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP)—which brings in an estimated profit of at least $63 million annually—has been in the evangelism business since 1964."[12] C56C 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the author of the article meant income and not profit. The author erred. IBLP is a certified NON-PROFIT organization. There are no shareholders or owners to distribute profits to. Vivaldi (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-profits can still have a "surplus", which may be legally, spent, invested, or distributed in various ways. In any case, it doesn't seem appropriate to list that in the intro. -Will Beback 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to include the fact that it is a certified non-profit by the IRS to the article. This certainly doesn't mean that it is a completely legitimate organization, but the IRS does require certain standards to be met to become certified as a religious charitable organization, lots of groups don't make the cut, but IBLP does. However, your point is taken, that they could have had a net income that was reinvested. As the non-profit article discusses, the proper term should be not-for-profit. Vivaldi (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

tabloid?

"tabloid"? got a source on that? anon edit left by 205.188.116.12 (talk · contribs)

If you are talking about "In These Times", perhaps you should read the article In These Times here on Wikipedia for starters. You can also read the definition of the word tabloid in your dictionary. And you can even read what In These Times says about the issue here in an article about themselves that they titled, "A Start-Up Socialist Tabloid". What do you think In These Times is? Vivaldi (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A 2005 article discussing a call for "Start-Up Tabloid" in 1976. Any proof this is still considered a tabloid? Its been 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read In These Times? Have you looked up the definition of the word "tabloid" in the dictionary? If you believe that In These Times has at any time adopted a format other than a tabloid, then it's your job to demonstrate that they have changed. I've already provided a source that shows they are a tabloid. Are you sure you know what a tabloid is? Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon 152.163.100.69 reverts addition of proper ref tags

152.163.100.69 (talk · contribs · count) has reverted an entire series of edits that included proper ref tags into the article so that they show up properly in the references section. This user has also included unsourced claims and irrelevant claims to the bio of Gothard, including the claim that medical science says prayer doesn't work to heal people. I agree with this claim. I don't believe that prayer has any particular benefit other than as a placebo, but I don't think its proper for an encyclopedia article about Gothard to include a reference to a study about prayer effectivity in his bio. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Watch your POV.[13] If you issue is with the sources fix the sources. It is completely fine to note that it is not a licensed medical school, and that studies have been conducted, which disagree with the advice Gothard has offered. Arbusto 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You watch your POV. You've let your desire to defame Gothard cloud your judgement. You also reverted the addition of ref tags! What possible reason could you have for that? Also, MTIA doesn't purport to be a medical school, it never has. And this article isn't the place to get into a debate about the effectivity of prayer. There are numerous people on both sides of that issue, and a number of them are medical schools and hospitals that are affiliated with religious organizations. I personally don't think prayer does anything more than placebo, but again this isn't the place for that debate. This line is completely out of place in this section. If you want to cite some sources that explain how Gothard advises people to ignore conventional medicine and seek prayer therapy instead then go ahead and do that and put the information in a section about why some people have criticized Gothard. I don't see anything in his work where he suggests people shouldn't follow the advice of their chosen doctor, but if you have that information, then add it to the article and cite your sources. Also, you may remember that Gothard is a living person and thus this article is subject to the guidelines at WP:BLP. Keep that in mind next time you add a statement that defames a living person. You have a bad history of adding irrelevant and unsourced criticism to people that have different religious views than you. Vivaldi (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)