Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
I removed the atheist links because of 1.non-notable 2. Request from CARM. Falphin 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. CARM is directly responsible for the offshoot that became AARM, so it is notable. Mdavidn 17:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have after reviewing the site. In response I will argue that it is not CARMS fault for AARM. The cause was atheists that disagreed with CARMS policies. So the cause is the atheists not CARM. Therfore it is not notable and it is not wikipedias responsibility to make something notable. Falphin 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still disagree. The reasons for AARM's creation are somewhat complex, and I do not wish to be drawn into that discussion. However, it should be noted that these "atheists" were happy at the CARM forums for many years before the sudden formation of AARM, so I do not see how it could be argued that they are exclusively to blame. It should also be noted that the participants at AARM are not all atheist. I still believe the link is notable. Mdavidn 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand I doubt a full agreement can be made on the topic. But I do want to thank you for paying attention to the article. Falphin 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User:Falphin has called the AARM site "relevant to CARM" in an edit summary elsewhere.[1] If it was founded in reaction to CARM and has a similar mission, and if it has additional informaiton that would be of use to readers, then it should be included. Being "notable" has noting to do with it. And the wishes of CARM have nothing to do with it either. How do we know their wishes anyway? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I see, the biggest problem is not that the links are parody but they include offensive material against Carm. Thats why it was such a big deal their. I won't revert instead I will wait for you answer. Falphin 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I found the request from CARM that you mentioned above. The person who made the request does not seem to have an unbiased opinion on the matter and may have a conflict of interest, since she did play a significant role in the formation of AARM. She is too quick to characterize the AARM perspective as "nonsense slander," "lies," "dishonest," and "seriously disturbed." Honoring her request to suppress a certain POV on this article does not seem in the spirit of Wikipedia. Mdavidn 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of offensive material? We often include websites that are critical of the subject of articles. If AARM is posting material critical of CARM that is all the more reason to include them here. Also, if one of the editors is an active participant in CARM, then it is important to remember that we all need to stay NPOV and focus on the quality of the article. While we're here, we're editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Its more than that. I'll ask for specific expamples if you want. While I don't completely disagree with the links it has made them very upset, they intend to write a formal complaint to wikipedia.Falphin 19:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of offensive material? We often include websites that are critical of the subject of articles. If AARM is posting material critical of CARM that is all the more reason to include them here. Also, if one of the editors is an active participant in CARM, then it is important to remember that we all need to stay NPOV and focus on the quality of the article. While we're here, we're editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes please do. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I've asked and am waiting for a reply(I would give them a couple days.) I will also do more of my own independent research into it which I have already started. Falphin 20:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you'll agree to it, can we leave the links off until I get the information. It would be beneficial it getting info from Dianne. Falphin 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes please do. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we leave the links off? BTW, who are the "they" that you refer to as being offended? Are these forum participants or are we talking about Slick himself? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I need time to get the info, its not helping the cause. Please. Also, I do have to disagree with the Slick lies one, right now their are more anti-sites than pro and that makes it a POV.
- I searched around and the only "pro" sites I could find were ones which merely listed CARM among other sites, perhaps with a comment like "highly recommended." I'm not sure what "cause" you are talking about helping. The cause of having a comprehensive, NPOV article is helped by having more information. Note that I haven't added any of the assertions from those websites to the article, an article which is now 100% positive to CARM. Once we've added some of the criticisms of CARM then it'll be more NPOV. But I'll wait for that until we've heard back from the "them." Thanks, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- If you interested me, Mdavin, and maybe Hyberbole are going to work with the Matt Slick and his controversy section. You can join us if you like. On my talk page I have made a page where we can freely edit before posting. And my cause, is understanding more about why the site offends them and then I can no what to do with the link.But I'm afraid if they are too upset I won't receive the help I need. Falphin 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I searched around and the only "pro" sites I could find were ones which merely listed CARM among other sites, perhaps with a comment like "highly recommended." I'm not sure what "cause" you are talking about helping. The cause of having a comprehensive, NPOV article is helped by having more information. Note that I haven't added any of the assertions from those websites to the article, an article which is now 100% positive to CARM. Once we've added some of the criticisms of CARM then it'll be more NPOV. But I'll wait for that until we've heard back from the "them." Thanks, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I need time to get the info, its not helping the cause. Please. Also, I do have to disagree with the Slick lies one, right now their are more anti-sites than pro and that makes it a POV.
- Also, we've only been talking about AARM, yet another site, www.infidels.org, is also being removed. What's the problem with that one? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for a response on that .Falphin 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You were deleting it without knowing why? Ok, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- They consider it an offensive site, but I'm an not familiar. You should look at the discussion that I have gone through at CaRM. Falphin 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No thanks, their forum software crashes my browser. Anyway, forums are generally not considered suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. All we are trying to figure out is if there is some legitimate reason not to include these links. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- They consider it an offensive site, but I'm an not familiar. You should look at the discussion that I have gone through at CaRM. Falphin 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You were deleting it without knowing why? Ok, -Willmcw 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for a response on that .Falphin 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we leave the links off? BTW, who are the "they" that you refer to as being offended? Are these forum participants or are we talking about Slick himself? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- My links suck but they are neccesary. Falphin 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Redirect vandalism Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images."
According to the directions and guidelines stated above, linking to articles or talk pages that are "offensive" is considered Vandalism. The links to the discussion boards listed to AARM and Atheists websites are extremely offensive in language and content. CARM does not want to be associated with such offensive links, it is vandalism.
- That policy refers to redirecting the article or images to offensive sites. That is not a reference to external links. Two separate issues. -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a start from my research
[2] [3] [4] refers about this page [5] Falphin 21:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to guidelines
There should be no personal attacks in the articles OR discussions
Also stated in guidelines that there should not be advertising. The link posted is for advertising purposes to promote the website that does not in fact have anything at all to do with the CARM website. The discussion boards is attacking individuals with offensive language. It links to a discussion board as an advertisment FOR the discussion board that is offensive, and personally attacking.
"There are two types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service,...... or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual...... Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however.
- I don't think the Matt Slick lies thing should of been their either, now if AARM ends up being removed(don't know if it will) the external links will be rightfully balanced. I will also add the controversy section later with help. Falphin 21:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? The "slick Lies" link is not wikispam. Also, the personal attacks policy refers to attacks on Wikipedia, not on other site. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)