Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Calvinist

I keep adding ", a Calvinist", after the initial point where it says Matt Slick's name. As the source, I use his own site, The Calvinist Corner, located at http://www.mslick.com/ . This site clearly lists Matt Slick as the author, and the mode of writing on the page is clearly speaking in support of Calvinism. I believe the source is adequate documentation that Matt Slick is a Calvinist. The fact that Matt Slick is Calvinist was added on 20:43, 16 January 2007 after consensus on the talk page (with me originally starting the campaign to add it). The article was drastically cut short or rewritten on 00:27, 19 September 2009, at which point the Calvinism note went away with most of the rest of the page. Seeing the article another year later, I noticed that it was missing and re-added it. Now nobody wants to add it, it seems. My addition keeps getting reverted. What can we do to get this resolved? I believe it's important to mention Matt Slick's religion here, as ultimately any evangelism or apologetics that CARM does will be in agreement with that religion because he is the author. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Any significant weight given to this particular POV, in secondary WP:RS sources? -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I will do some Googling to find out if there are any, but I don't believe it is necessary to find any other sources in this case. Matt Slick, the author, is claiming to be a Calvinist on this source. Nobody else determines Matt Slick's religion apart from Matt Slick himself. Also, that Matt Slick is a Calvinist is NPOV. You keep referring to it as a POV, but it isn't. It is a fact with no room for opinion either way. Matt Slick himself claims to be a Calvinist, so he is a Calvinist. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Although this isn't a source from book, major news site, etc., which I imagine you're looking for, here's a page on CARM.org where Matt Slick says "I am a Calvinist...". --Mister Magotchi (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do any secondary sources say that this is particularly noteworthy? Otherwise, advocating this, is simply your own POV. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what will satisfy your POV on what is a good source in this case, because Matt Slick isn't particularly newsworthy, but right now, there are about 14,500 results on Google for ' "matt slick" calvinist '. Pick one. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a specific secondary source which states why this is noteworthy of inclusion in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being uneven in your application of how you interpret the rules. carm.org is used in five citations on this article. Three of them don't have secondary sources talking about the notability of the facts. All I can find for sources of the notability of his Calvinism are other sites writing things against him, but as I have a relatively low amount of experience on Wikipedia, I don't know exactly what threshold the sources have to meet in order to be considered reliable. Either way, if you're going to not allow me to make a note of his Calvinism on the basis that I can't find a secondary source claiming it's notable, the rule should be applied to the other instances on the page where carm.org is cited as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Magotchi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Those other instances are simple factual material, not trying to push a particular POV, as you are doing here. Let us discuss one issue at a time please, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how identifying the religion of a theologian and apologist is POV? I would think the desire to omit such information is more POV than its inclusion. I don't care that it be as prominent as I had it (in the first paragraph), but it certainly deserves a mention somewhere in the article. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My view on this is probably similar (but probably not identical) to Cirt's. Speaking for myself, I have two problems with the use of "Calvinist" on this basis: (i) there are multiple ways that calling a website 'The Calvinist Corner' -- the most obvious is that Slick is writing from a Calvinist perspective. Another might be that he is writing about Calvinism. To take the former as true, and draw the the conclusion that Slick is a Calvinist is an inference and thus WP:Synthesis. It's most probably true, but not the sort of thing we're meant to be doing on Wikipedia. (ii) There's a fairly strong Calvinist thread through much (most?) of conservative evangelical Christianity. There are probably dozens of articles where we could find a similar level of evidence for applying the word 'Calvinist'. We don't, and to my mind shouldn't, unless a WP:SECONDARY source feels it sufficiently relevant/important a description to make use of it. This means that such articles aren't 'loaded up' with true-but-of-doubtful-relevance WP:IINFO descriptions. I suspect that part of the problem is that much of the secondary-source writing concentrates on CARM rather than Slick personally. However this simply means that, per WP:DUE, we should follow suit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is sorely lacking in a particular area, and that is the definition of the faith perspective of CARM. Slick's personal religious views are secondary to CARM's in this article, but nevertheless important, being that this organization is mostly a one-man show. As a newcomer to reading this article, I found it impossible to discern what CARM believes (beyond being 'Christian',) based on what is presented in the article. That was my number one question about their identity, and I was quite satisfied with the answers given on the primary source, carm.org. I strongly suggest that some overview of CARM's beliefs be presented. WP:SECONDARY says, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. I don't see how reproducing tenets of CARM's (and by extension, Slick's) beliefs, violates any Wikipedia guideline on primary sources or NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia what is or is not noteworthy is assessed by virtue of its already having been discussed in secondary sources. Your personal opinions about the current article's state may or may not be valid, but are irrelevant without backing of secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Two problems with this view is (i) most readers who are not religious scholars would only have a vague understanding what 'Calvinism' (stated baldly) really means & (ii) Calvinism actually covers a fairly broad range of theological viewpoints (as you would expect to have evolved over several centuries, based on the work of a major theological innovator). For this reason, I think we need to find secondary sources that infer, analyse, and give context to Slick's views, rather than simply baldly state them based upon WP:SYNTH of his website's title. The latter is both bad policy-wise, and fails to inform the reader. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read my 3rd comment of the initial discussion above where I link to the page with Matt Slick saying "I am a Calvinist...". It certainly is not under the umbrella of WP:SYNTH. Cirt isn't complaining that my source is incorrect in calling him Calvinist. He's saying that the fact that he's Calvinist isn't notable enough for the article. I disagree, but since I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia veteran, and since he carries the banhammer, I can't really refute him. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I tend to pay closer attention to sources cited in the article (which were WP:SYNTH), than ones mentioned in talk, so I overlooked that one. Sorry. But I think my other points stand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

'Commentary' section

My feeling is that this section is a bit large, and a bit generically-named for ease of reading. Can anybody think of some thematic subheadings that we can divide it up into? I've tried, but nothing comes immediately to mind. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Open to suggestions. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

The CARM website is hostile to a number of religions, namely Roman Catholicism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and Mormonism, to name a few. This article needs to address this fact in a balanced, encyclopedic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.213.46 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead! Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of quality and bias

This article shows a lack of quality by the fact that the "comments" section is somehow off-topic and grossly long compared to the actual article. Also it shows bias by using the neutral headline "comments" and then starting with a long criticism, which is more directed at counter-cult then at the site itself.10:35, 25 August 2011 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.60.61 (talk)

I agree. It's cute how the first paragraph has several lines of directly quoted criticism and then just "Slick issued a written response to Cowan's article" followed by more criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.238.244 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

CARM is a highly criticized website, especially the forums, for rampant inaccuracy and borderline hate-speech and bigotry. Per wiki policy, we weigh articles according to the weight of outside reliable sources. The weight of these sources is reflected in the weight of the article. Really, if anything, we're going too soft on CARM.Farsight001 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)