Talk:Peter Ruckman/Archive 1

Wild Illiteracy
Under the recent, intense, repeated scrutiny of JzG (an "editor") and Arbusto/o (a "known quantity") we no longer capitalize "Bible." You guys are trying to hard to impose your bias that you are destroying the integrity of the product. Fix the bogus link while you are at it. 172.170.52.134

This makes little sense and has been sitting there for days, despite several edits: "Ruckman received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Kansas State University. He obtained his Masters from the University of Alabama and Doctorate from Bob Jones University (then unaccredited institution)." Was the intent to say (then an unaccredited institution)? I think it is still and unaccredited institution. What gives? 172.161.109.194

Arbusto strikes again. The page has read: "He obtained his Masters from the University of Alabama and Doctorate from Bob Jones University (then unaccredited institution)" It has been changed to read "then - and now - an unaccredited institution" and "then an unaccredited institution." Both are obviously better than the poor English Arbusto reverts to (with no reasonin provided). No one seems to have noticed his poor editing or his lack of a justification. Both are a recurring feature in this entry (see editing history). PSRuckman

Why the "unaccredited institution" remark at all? What you mean is secular accreditation anyway. How about keeping it NPOV, eh? 64.50.249.202 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you and wikipedia are basing all your oppinions on Peter Ruckman based on your releigious beliefs.. and for that matter here is what i thing of your no capitilizing BIBLE BIBLE Bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.65.10 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior
It seems to me to be a bit odd that as soon as the article is protected PSRuckman joins in to make the same edits. Especially given that some suspicion of similar behavior already exists: JoshuaZ 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Even more odd is the fact that he did not simply log in under another user name. I mean, how hard is that? GlimmTwin
 * Now one would think it is easy to log in with another user name and make comments, yet it seems difficult for some.. "I mean, how hard is that?" Arbusto 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I look, the more suspicious this looks. It appears the "same edits" were simply made by highlighting, cutting and pasting. Can that be done? The image was also removed. is that legal? GlimmTwin
 * Funny how this edit was signed by GlimmTwin yet the editor was PSRuckman? Arbusto 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone might be having an identity crisis.FannyMay (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
Ok, PSRuckman, cut out the sockpuppeting now. The last edit you made on this page was signed by Glim Twin. Furthermore, you use the same language to refer to Arbustoo as 172.167.165.46 as you do on your talk page here. Sockpuppets used in this fashion are highly frowned upone. See WP:SOCK. JoshuaZ 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept your frown and give it right back to you. Stop vandalizing the page and blocking persons who are attempting to build it into a useful resource.
 * Also, looks like you have some POV editing to do re Arbusto's latest revision (yes, he continues to edit a page he seeks to have deleted). I wonder if your religious background will help you make an honest decision about it. No, actually, I do not wonder. I have seen enough already. 172.137.216.246


 * You repeatedly use terms like "POV editing" and "vandalizing" incorrectly. You may want to read the relevant pages. Meanwhile, individual wikipedians religious backgrounds are irrelevant, and your comments in that regard are both unhelpful and constitutes personal attacks. Please desist. I will in the meantime interpret your lack of denial of the sockpuppeting as an admission of such. Desist now. Thank you. JoshuaZ 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK sockpuppet police, where are you? Arbusto has reverted to "then unaccredited institution" without explanation twice and Infrogmation has made the same revert with no explanation. What are the odds that two people would edit the same page on the same day and have such poor taste / ability in writing? PSRuckman

Contentious edits

 * 1) We do not generally refer prominently to people's doctoral titles in articles even when they come form accredited universities.  When they come form unaccredited universities it would arguably be fraudulent to do so.  We can say that he has a doctorate from Bob Jones (or should that be his friend Bob?) but we certainly don't say "a.k.a. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman".
 * 2) We do not say "(arguably the most famous)" unless we have a citation.
 * Truly. JzG will not allow any empirical demonstration of this though. He would rather deny it and force his denial on everyone. His bio (JzG's) suggests he is a religious person and he probably brings views to this topic. He is clearly a poor choice for editing. 172.137.216.246
 * Truly you do not know how tempted I was to correct that spelling error in large bold type. Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) We do not edit the article if we are related to the subject.
 * Sounds pretty stupid. Especially when you have someone who write as poorly as Arbusto/o172.137.216.246


 * "Someone who write as poorly" is just too funny. Arbusto 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to have lost the picture. Is that a problem? Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the picture will return someday ... who knows? 172.135.21.128

Who keeps inserting those mindless quotes from some obscure Neo-Nazi that evidently called Dr. Ruckman "Jew-loving"?? Obviously that is compelety from left field and irrelevant. Nobody knows the toothless cracker who came up with that, and his opinon about Dr. Ruckman is some lame attempt to garner celebrity for himself. The troll that keeps doing that should leave wiki and go lurking back to stormfront and thereby increase the IQ of both sites. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24* (talk • contribs)

The use of the Dr. title in relation to an unaccredited doctorate
"Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, B.A., M.A., PhD., attended Kansas State College, University of Alabama, and received his M.A. and Ph.D., from Bob Jones University", which was then unaccredited, but has since become accredited. With a photographic memory, reading "at a rate of 700 words" per minute, Dr. Ruckman had already managed to read "about 6,500 books", by the time he received his doctorate at BJU, graduating at the top of his class. The founder of the University, "Bob Jones, Sr., considered Peter S. Ruckman to be the brightest student to ever graduate from his college and wanted him to stay on staff and TEACH." (http://www.sluiceboxadventures.com/rearguard6_ruckman.htm)Telpardec (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 

I made some edits - the position of Dr. Ruckman should be stated as accurately as possible. It is obviously a controversial view, but let others argue over its merit elsewhere. I also agree the title "Dr" is being deleted only out of spite. Dr. Ruckman is indeed a briliant scholar, certainly entitled to being called "Dr" - and besides, in this field (i.e., Bible) most schools are either self-accredited or accredited by like minded religious institutions. That does not mean the man is not a "Dr" - he is. 24*


 * Whether a man is brilliant or not has nothing to do with whether he should be called doctor when his degree stems solely from an unaccredited institution. Furthermore, many bible schools are accredited, for example Baptist Bible College (Springfield, Missouri). Finally, a lack of accreditation in the general class of schools has nothing to do with whether or not the degrees should be treated like they are degrees with a regular, accredited institution. To differentiate between schools in that fashion would constitute original research among other problems. JoshuaZ 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, see how many times you can find the title "Dr." in the article for this article for one of the most famously brilliant scholars ever. Or indeed this article about a preacher man with a legitimate right to use the title. Just zis Guy you know? 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the King one has it 4 or 5 times. The Einstein one however has the phrase "Dr." exactly once, in front of the name of the medical doctor who autopsied Einstein. JoshuaZ 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The King ones appear to me to be mainly quotes or derived therefrom. Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the bottom line clearly is that we shouldn't put a Dr. in front of Ruckman on Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The name without Dr. Googles much higher and the title is open to dispute, that seems grounds enough. Just zis Guy you know? 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The false title of "Dr" has been removed again. Arbusto 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Give it up 24.* This is not about the empirical world. This is about how functional sockpuppets think the world SHOULD be. Every reference to reality will be "disputed" and replaced with a preference for some other world. The quality of Wiki and its usefulness to readers are quite overrated to this trio. PSRuckman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.246.139 (talk • contribs) 08:57, March 8, 2006
 * Yes, once again the rouge admins are imposing bias on the neutral opinions of poeple who are hardly connected to the subject at all. Much. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the authority for this assertion that keeps being made, that a man cannot be called "Dr." if his PHd degree is from an "unaccredited" institution? Please give us the citation to this rule so the repeated assertion can be either proved or not, once and for all. The institution that accredited Bob Jones University (TRACS) also accredited Liberty University, Tenn Temple, and many others. *snip* 24*


 * I've taken the liberty of separating your comment from JzG's. Now, the reasons above give a pretty good summary of why we won't. And yes, a degree from Liberty wouldn't give a "Dr." in front of the name on Wikipedia either. Whether or not any of us have titles is irrelevant to whether or not Ruckman should have one in the article. Incidentally, why did you feel a need to wikilink doctorate? Is it because it makes it stand out in nice little blue letters? Why do you feel such a need to overemphasize his degrees? JoshuaZ 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a degree from an unaccredited school is essentially meaningless because it is not recognized by the academic community (and is illegal in some states like Oregon to claim you have a "degree" if it is from an unaccredited school). So if, say, a doctorate is not recognized since it came from an unaccredited school then the title of "Dr." is not recognized as well.


 * The fact that the same person who puts the title in is also the same person who removes criticism really shows a POV. Lastly, TRACS has not approved BJU for accreditation (it is a canidate) and even if it had it doesn't matter because Ruckman did not attend while it was accredited. Hence, his degree would have been earned from an unaccredited school. Arbusto 07:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see one example of this. I put the title in, well understanding an empirical reality (the man is widely known by that title). But I also brought back the particularly goofy comment about three marriages and two divorces. The fact that it remains really shows a POV. In addition, I have also asked that a link to the KJV preface be added (as it contradicts Ruckman's basic premise). Indeed, if you had given the matter any attention at all, you would have noticed that I had added more critical information to this reference and other related references than all three of the FSPs combined. The only POV I see is that the three of you seem to think your POV is above reproof and you are more than willing to deny reality and impose your view of how the world should be on everyone else. "Some states like Oregon." Wow. There is an intellectual hotbed! I wonder if the constitutionality of that law has ever been challenged. I couldn't imagine it getting past a district court! This page would clearly be three times more informative and useful but for your "editing." It would also contain much better sources of criticism (since that is certainly the only thing you would ever contribute) than your reference to the unknown whoever. 172.149.188.59
 * According to Google he is more usually not known by that title. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PSRuckman, it would be nice if you would just sign in with your name rather than construct sockpuppets. Thanks. JoshuaZ 17:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you would be more civil JoshuaZ. I did not accuse you of sockpuppeting when you failed to sign something recently. Furthermore, you proved the point I made elsewhere. You addressed nothing that was said and focused entirely on who you thought the writer was. Good show, mate. PSRuckman


 * Well I'm certainly happy to hear that this wasn't a sockpuppet attempt on your part, especially since in the section above it seemed like you didn't mind sockpuppeting. Now, to more substantial issues. JzG addressed the matter succintly although I am curious as to a) what makes you decide that Oregon is somehow not an intellectual state and b) why do you think that matters? Also note that such laws have been on the books for a very long time so it is unlikely that they would be found to have any Constitutional problem. I'm also curious, what in the Constitution do you think such laws would violate/ JoshuaZ 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NO,NO,NO... *snip*. Bob Jones University is not an illegal degree mill. It is authorized to give phd's in the state of South Carolina - such a degree may not be recognized in other states without disclosure of the institution's status. It does not however amount to a veto right that any state has over the use of the title "doctor" by a phd who holds his degree from another state. Sort of like me saying Bill Clinton isn't a real lawyer because he is only a member of the Arkansas Bar. He can't practice law in California, but that does not change his status. *snip* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24* (talk • contribs)
 * Among other issues. Please see WP:NPA. Calling people "bozos" is highly frowned upon. That said, there is a massive difference between being a lawyer, which is a trade and is thus generally has ability to practice determine by states, and doctorates which are academic degrees. Please do not conflate academic and trade titles. JoshuaZ 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is some simialrity, in that "Dr." seems to be used by these guys in place of "Reverend." But it is still bogus. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing gets through to you, eh? As for personal attacks, I find it HIGHLY OFFENSIVE that some hateful (and illegal in many jurisdictions) quotes from a neo-nazi, Hitler-loving ANTISEMITE wacko keeps showing up in this article. The fact that these quotes are not immediately removed by those super-sensitive souls that don't like being called "bozos" themselves only reinforces the compliment in their regard. Lawyers who ARE NOT LAWYERS IN OTHER STATES still get to be called "lawyer" and you haven't given any good reason why this analogy does not apply in this situation. Dr. Ruckman is 100% entitled to be called "Dr." in the State of South Carolina due to his earned degree in that state *snip* Why don't you "conflate" a little over that one and stop the unnecessary deletions of "Dr" for Dr. Ruckman. 24*


 * First, please keep in mind that using all caps and insulting people will not make anyone more inclined to agree with you. In general shouting using capslock makes people lose credibility rather than gain it. That said, whether or not a quote is from a nazi, Hitler, the devil, Darth Vader, or The Lone Power is not relevant as to whether you can engage in personal attacks on Wikipedia. Desist, now as to Hymers, a quick google search did not turn up any Nazi connections between R. L. Hymers. Could you possibly provide information that would in this regard? As for your comment "Lawyers who ARE NOT LAWYERS IN OTHER STATES still get to be called "lawyer" . You again misunderstand. They are lawyers then who are not liscenced to practice in those other states. This is very different from an academic degree. (also, "spiteful wikiwonk" is another on the WP:NPA list. If you persist, I will report you to an admin.) JoshuaZ 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from some so-called "Pastor V.S. Herrell" were inserted, and nobody deleted them. That is the sort of garbage that invites outrage. From your comments it appears you have no sense how unacceptable this is. You can't seem to make a logical connection between things, as in "whether or not a quote is from a nazi, Hitler, the devil, Darth Vader, or The Lone Power [sic] is not relevant as to whether you can engage in personal attacks on Wikipedia" Huh? Don't accuse me of anything *snip* because that sentence makes no sense at all. As it says WP:NPA "you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently." So back off. *snip* reported is the dangerous*snip* Herrell's "mongrel, jew-loving" comments. 24*


 * Can you answer my question or not? What evidence do you have that Herrell is a Nazi? JoshuaZ 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then you tell us what you think about "Pastor V.S. Herrell" - how would you describe his views? 24*


 * Thank you for not answering the question. Yes, it is trivially obvious that the man is anti-semitic. That doesn't make him a nazi. Evidence please? JoshuaZ 05:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Neo-Nazi" not "Nazi" ... And how is that wrong? 24*


 * Ok, evidence the man is a neo-nazi then? JoshuaZ 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Josh, the solution here is for you to start a Wiki article on Herrell, and tell everbody how herrellites are not neo-nazis at all, they just call people "jew-loving mongrels" as a term of endearment. We're looking forward to you doing just that... 24*


 * There are many people who are anti-semitic who are not Nazis or neo-nazis. May I conclude from your above responses that you have no evidence this man is a neo-nazi? JoshuaZ 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.christianseparatist.org/catalog/realhitler.html

New from the Nationalist Free Press, The Real Hitler by V.S. Herrell ­ "The proof that history need not be dull is V.S. Herrell's book The Real Hitler: a moving, exciting and thoroughly researched, honest story of Hitler's life, his birth, youth, and development into the greatest German statesman in 2000 years. "V.S. Herrell shows you the real Hitler, not the man lied about in the Jewish press. He demolishes their lies with proof from Hitler's published works and programs. Nothing is more heartening than to honor the truth. V.S. Herrell provides us with the truth unfailingly researched in The Real Hitler." ­ Margaret Stucki, Ph.D. Send cash, check, or money order to: [delete], or order with a credit card by clicking below: 198 pgs. - $15.00" - snip.

So Josh, explain on, what were you saying about Herrell? Pray tell...24*


 * Yeah, he's a neo-nazi, and the comment should be removed, or at best, strongly qualified. Now, do you see how much simpler this conversation would have been if you had given me that link at the beginning of this conversation instead of having to go through a page of discussion? JoshuaZ 05:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Antiruckman Crusaders
The antiruckman crusaders keep inserting their POV into this article. They won't allow (by contentious edits and constant deletions of useful information) anything to stand in the way of turning this into a peon of antiruckmanism. Antiruckmans keep inserting their dogma into the article, such as only allowing PARTIAL INFORMATION regarding the marriage history of Dr. Ruckman. They don't want their smear tactics defused by information regarding how Dr. Ruckman's first wife abandoned him, and how he had to raise his children on his own. That might make Dr. Ruckman look good, so the antiruckman propagandists deleted it. Of course, "Wiki" is not suppose to serve the end of disinformation, but there you have it. The antiruckmans are also religiously fanatical in refusing to allow Dr. Ruckman to be called "Dr. Ruckman" and with gross intollerance delete each and every mention of "Dr" in the article. They fiendishly delete informative all positive factual information, and sling as much of their antiruckman mud as possible. The antiruckmans truly believe they have a mission in life, and lying and unfairness are permissable to the antiruckmans in order to acheive their aims. Antiruckmans include many hateful neo-nazis who also seek to use this article to inflame Jew-hatred. Dr. Ruckman has spoken well of the Jewish people as God's chosen race through which Jesus Christ was born, and who yet have a divine mission in this world. The antiruckmans seek subtle ways of advancing their POV as well, such as by removing the capital "B" from Bible. A capital "B" might imply that it is a book that should be respected, and that might lend credence to Dr. Ruckman's views. Antiruckmans will go to great lengths to deny that their POV edits are POV edits at all, much less that they betray their bitter antiruckmanism. *snip* Don't attempt to reason with them. 24*


 * Again, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. What do you think this accomplishes? And incidentally, if you think you shouldn't reason with the "antiruckman propagandists" why are you bothering to talk on this page? JoshuaZ 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So you feel personally attacked? Poor fellow, please do let me know how I can make you feel better...24*


 * You could try signing in, your account is no longer blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced 24.* and PSRuckman are the same individual, when Ruckman didn't sign in, the resulting IP number was different.JoshuaZ 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But surely it's a functional sock puppet? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * * Thanks for the big WARNING you put on my page JzG ... There, you wrote "Calling other editors "functional sockpuppets" is a breach of WP:CIVIL and amounts to an allegation of being a meatpuppet. If you repeat this accusation you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" ... Sounded pretty serious. Let's see, what is the lesson for the day? If I use the term and put a ;-) after it, will you not whine? Yes, it was a rhetorical question. Shall I put a big WARNING on your talk page and make dire threats? Where is the integrity? Clearly I am every individual who diagrees with you three. Learn to love it. I am everywhere and everyone. PSRuckman
 * They don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse, and Ford frequently failed to notice it unless it was pointed out to him. Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lame, but let me go into JoshuaZ mode ... Help me understand. Were you just being sarcastic when you were issuing a warning that you would ban me from Wiki? or when you violated your own made up rule about participating on Wiki? PSRuckman


 * "Antiruckman Crusaders" is funny. Gee, I guess you're "anti-Ruckman" if you believe only accredited degrees are recogized degrees. Arbusto 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a site around the internet somewhere from which you can download the irony detection plugin for the human brain. I'll be sure to drop the link by when I find it. Being English of course I have it as part of the standard install. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe spell-check is an even more common function for would-be writers. 172.169.50.129
 * I can spell very well, thanks - I'm well known for it in the alternate universe they call real life. Unfortunately due to a childhood accident I have bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand, and that has a detrimental effect on the accuracy of my typing.  I would go so far as to say that I can't type worth a damn.  Especially when the scar tissue splits, as it occasionally does; this is quite painful and sometimes leads to the nail beds becoming inflamed.  If you really want to put the boot in you could I suppose poke fun at the size of my ears, the fact that my name divides into four words each of which means "man", the fact that I am still unable to ride my unicycle, or the absurd colour of my car.  Alternatively, you could try making constructive comments about the article. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggesting contructive commentary. I highly recommend it as well. PSRuckman

Sentence?
Not to be overly critical ... but can we do something about this: "Graduates of the school reportedly go on to become evangelists, pastors and missionaries, but details are sketchy and the school has no website, and no details of faculty, student numbers or prospectus appear to be available." I think, here in America, this might be a run-on. Maybe they have different rules in Enlgand, or "some states, like Oregon." Best, PSRuckman


 * It looks to me like it is grammatically correct but awkward. What would you say to: "Graduates of the school reportedly go on to become evangelists, pastors and missionaries. However, details are sketchy and the school has no website, and no details of faculty, student numbers or prospectus appear to be available." Also, note that in talk pages, the convention is to put new topics at the bottom, this makes things easier to read chronologically if they are interrelated at all. JoshuaZ 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Two sentences are going to be much better. There are at least three nested in the current version. For factual purposes, contrary to what is written, the "details" mentioned are all available. One of the outside links invites those interested to write for such and provides the address. "Pensacola Bible Institute. Write or call for information. P.O. Box 6235, Pensacola, FL, 32503, Phone Number 850-476-1387" Best,PSRuckman


 * No the address and phone number does not need to be in there. The reader can view the contact on the webpage that is linked. Arbusto 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * * Not sure what planet you are on - per usual. No one asked that it be put there. Was simply pointing out that the "details" were available upon request, so what was written was misleading. Calm yourself. I don't think you have to fear this page will become too informative.PSRuckman


 * Informative... coming from someone with the username PSRuckman who didn't know Ruckman's "doctorate" is an unaccredited degree. BTW: How many people do you expect to write to a PO Box operated by an unaccredited "Dr." to get details on what classes are offered or who the faculty are at an unaccredited "institute" without a campus? Arbusto 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * * The number that I would expect to write would, of course, have nothing in the world to do with whether or not "details" were available. You can be so silly. Even if you bring up seven other unrelated topics, the language was misleading at best. BTW, I suggest you have the courage of your convictions and put the word university in quotation marks - if a place is not accredited. What is the hold up here? Get on the ball, man. "Without a campus?" Wow. What a hoot. PSRuckman


 * Where is the campus? Use google.com maps put in the address and link it here. That will allow us to see an image of it. How many American presidents graduated from the "institute"? I would have nominated the "institute" for deletion had it not been merged because a PO Box is not a school. I am willing to bet that not a single person has sent a inquiry to that PO Box for enrollment in the last year. Why would anyone? Arbusto 07:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. If you cannot find the campus, it must not exist. Nice to get some of your editing rules out in the open. American presidents? Wha? The goofy scale is getting quite the workout here. I am guessing the Institute has averaged 30-40 new students a year for almost 40 years now. Thus, your "bet" only needs bucks it. Name your amount and let's make it happen. Still waiting for you to put University in quotation marks? Why are you only fast when it comes to reverting typos? PSRuckman


 * It's not a "university," there is no reason to think it is. Also is it a logical fallacy to demand proof of a negative. If the so-called "campus" exists then give proof, without proof we have no reason to think it does exist. As for my bet, I don't trust people who have proved themselves deceitful (see my post where I point out PSRuckman signed another username to his comments). Arbusto 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Will go slow. Put quotation marks around University in Bob Jones "University." Why? Explained three times already. Catch up. Logical fallacy? Too late for you to swing that banner. I know what you mean about trust. I don't trust people who disguise POV edits as "minor" (See the rebuke you well deserved on your own talk page). Meanwhile, I encourage you to reign in your fantasy land. If you don't know of something, it does not exist. PSRuckman

More movement?
Let's see a link to Doug Kutilek, one of the more intelligent writers on the topic of Ruckmanism and KJV only approaches. Yes, "more intelligent" is subjective, but he is generally quite critical, so that should suffice. See http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/index_doug.html. I am not adding the link myself because of my user name ... no, it makes no sense to me either! PSRuckman


 * Link added. Is there anything else you think should be added? JoshuaZ 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. This may add up to something yet! Would you be so kind as to add "Col." in front of John Hamilton Ruckman? The Col., incidentally, would be (he died in 1966) even more hard-nosed than any of you guys. He would always write ... Bob Jones "University" ... Maybe you should institute a quotation mark rule here as well. It would be much more witty and entertaining than the protecting-the-title-of-"Dr." routine. Best, PSRuckman


 * I added the title Col. However "Bob Jones University" is the name of the university. It would be highly POV to put the word University in quotation marks. It will still as is. JoshuaZ 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that we have established that how something/someone is known is quite beside the point. Why protect the world from fake "Dr."s and not fake "Universities?" Thanks for the edit though. PSRuckman

Enough with the accreditation stuff. Sure, most "Baptist" schools out there are "degree mills" but who says that secular accreditation is the "end-all"? This all SMACKS POV. 64.50.249.202 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.*
Several of the edits made by this user were purely factual and quite informative. He/she certainly has more (and better) information on the topic than the FSPs who are trying to make the page worthy of removal (something they have failed at once already). Sorry 24.*. There is no room for your type here. PSRuckman
 * Funny how you say you did not accuse Joshua of sockpupetting, but you still accuse him of being a meatpuppet (which is the Wikipedia term for the accusation you make here). Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

-*snip* An informative article is not the goal *snip*, obviously. Any attempt to sidetrack the antiruckman disinformation campaign will be quickly undone by antiruckman agents. Easy to figure out who's really at work here. 24*


 * The above edit accomplished nothing more than violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Stop.JoshuaZ 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you said it well there Josh. Disagreement with you is incivility. The edits here are clearly the result of some bizarre sense of spite, they are not resulting in an informative entry, and every attempt to reverse the trend is quickly undone. Doesn't get any more factual than that. PSRuckman


 * I see. Could you point out to me in the above edit by 24.* what was acomplished? I have trouble seeing "it is amazing how spiteful the antiruckmans are" as civil or productive. Accusing the other editors of an " antiruckman disinformation campaign" by "antiruckman agents" also seems to me to be neither productive nor civil. Could you explain possibly how you think they are either of these? JoshuaZ 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Focus Josh. Focus. The topic is the edits done by 24* to the entry. Please re-read. PSRuckman

I don't know what my "IP" is as I'm at the coffee shop, but this is 24.* The article has many problems:

1. Full birth info, I believe, is (Nov. 21, 1921 - )


 * Make that November 19 PSRuckman

2. He does not believe the King James Bible is "the only valid translation" of the Bible. The view is that it is the best and final English version. He believes Luther's Bible was the best for its time and language, and so on. Get his "History of the Church" series for further insight.


 * At least one version qualified "for English speaking persons," but that was edited out for who knows what reason. PSRuckman

3. Highlighting "unaccredited" by the schools to a link w/in Wiki on accreditation, while no such link allowed of the "doctorate" to the wiki article explaining the degree and why it is perfectly acceptable for one who earned it to use the title "Dr", this is selective POV linking.


 * The distracting interest in accreditation is clearly the result of a POV problem. What gets me is how unevenly applied. If Ruckman does not deserve to be called "Dr." then Bob Jones does not deserved to be called a "University." But, it has be noted elsewhere that conistency in editing is only a matter of the taste of those willing to block other from participating. PSRuckman

4. Dr. Ruckman's early life and conversion experience are left out. His life in Topeka Kansas where he worked as a lifeguard at Gage Park (its the same park that Rev. Fred Phelps made famous). He read a book a day from the age 10, studied all major religions extensively, worked as a radio disc jockey, was an army combat instructor. Got saved at age 27, went that year to Bob Jones. He was one of Bob Sr.'s favorite students. He worked as "chalk-talk" artist, traveling evangelist, and mission hall superintendent.


 * No way this stuff can make it. Too factual. PSRuckman

5. A list of his various studies is missing, giving the impression that the only thing he ever did was promote the King James Bible. That is actually a small part of his life's work, as he is a full-time Baptist minister and author on many other topics.

6. His "King James" position should be left to its own category, without all the POV against it. Just the facts, ma'am. The critical statements should go into some other article on "anti-King James Only" or "King James Onlyism", not here.

7. His marriage information either should be deleted entirely, or else given with a full explanation. The fact is his first wife left him after he got saved, and he was left raising several children on his own for about 6 years. He finally remarried, and eventually had 10 children. It is true his second wife also left him, but he is now happily married to wife number three. The story is more complicated than leaving one sentence that portrays him as a serial divorcee.


 * At first, I was annoyed by the irrelevent information regarding Ruckman's marriages too, but I personally re-inserted it back in the entry myself (have no idea who wrote it first). I see it as kind of a nice punch line to what is going on in this entry. Indeed, it is so odd and goofy, it red flags the entire enterprise. It is all the warning that intelligent readers would ever need about the POV problem. Notice also that there is no source cited for the information - you know, the kind of referencing that would be DEMANDED for any of the other facts that you mentioned above. PSRuckman

8. Over-kill on "unaccredited" information. We have links, links and explaining that no government aid goes there, etc. etc. Ok, point made. Move on. Enough already, so what!?


 * Again, you are on point. But it is a distraction that the POV demands. PSRuckman

9. The word "sketchy" is highly POV.

10. Use of "reportedly" as to the students. Do you think this is like the "moon landing conspiracy"?? No one actually goes there? It is only a post office box? Somebody has been watching too many X-files reruns. Its a small private school that doesn't want or seek accreditation from anybody. It doesn't church out educators, it graduates pastors and evangelists who believe in the King James Bible and are equipped to defend it.


 * If Arbustoo cannot find the campus, it does not exist. If he thinks no one has ever contacted the place for additional information, then no one has. The 80-100 students that have attended every year since the early 1970's are fake. Gotta love it. PSRuckman

11. Article says that information "does not appear to be available" yet it is. Anybody can write or call and get the information they want.


 * No doubt. The entry is completely misleading. PSRuckman

12. "Ruckman's position is" ... position on what? He has many "positions" on many different topics.

13. For every "criticism" Dr. Ruckman has a different view. For example, the statement that the King James preface "directly contradicts" Dr. Ruckman's view is left hanging. What this person means is that the KJV translators never claimed to be inspired in the preface. And the answer to that is that very few authors of the scriptures themselves made any such claim, either.

14. Links are negative. How about equal time? There are many links to sites that support and agree with Dr. Ruckman's position on scripture.


 * I think I am working my way there, but I may be over-estimating the sense of integrity among those lording over the page. We'll just have to wait and see. PSRuckman

15. Other Dr. Ruckman positions that are worthy of mention due to his relatively unique advocacy of them: Separation versus Integration - a view of the races; The Body, Soul, and Spirit - explained; Dispensational view on the Kingdom of Heaven versus Kingdom of God (which he contends are not the same thing); His broadsides against Cambellites and views on Baptism; Spiritual circumcision; Views on the identity of the Antichrist & mark of the beast; Serpent's seed speculation; his use of colorful language in the tradition of Martin Luther.


 * Too informative.PSRuckman

16. The paranoid fear of any association with Dr. Ruckman by Christian leaders who actually agree with him (such as Dr. Ian Paisley); and the policies in place at many Bible colleges where students caught with Dr. Ruckman's materials are expelled. 24*


 * It's funny how two supposedly separate users incorrectly sign their user names and IPs in the same way(ie without the date). So you can either say two separate people with the same syntax and same POV also make that same error. Or you can conclude they are one deceitful person. Arbusto 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to la la land 24.*, where anyone who annoys Arbustoooooooo must be the same person. Will be a cold day in you-know-where before I am caught in a "coffee shop." :-) PSRuckman

A*-o's evidently got a generalized paranoia that goes beyond a brooding suspicion of all PO Boxes, he also thinks yours truly "24.*" is somebody else! *snip* My understanding is that A*o's accusation is a wiki no no. *snip*. 24*

Ok, items #1 through #16 above have been up for discussion awhile now and there does not seem to be much objection or many contrary facts presented that would preclude editing them directly into the article at this point. Birthday is corrected and its time to revist Dr. Ruckman's article. One cannot take seriously any future objections by arbusto, jzg, and joshua if this opportunity to be heard is ignored. 24* 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading statement concerning "details" on PBI
This entry currently says that "deatils" about the Pensacola Bible Institute are not available. It has been clearly pointed out to the persons who insist on lording over the page and that such details are available and the exact manner in which they are avaialble. Currently, the justifications for retaining the misleading statement are 1. No, we will not allow contact information to appear (something no one has asked for) and 2. Arbustoo bets no one ever uses the contact information (an explanation that deserves no analysis). It would appear that the only explanation for the insistence on retaining the misleading statement is a POV that excludes even the possibility of being reasonable or honest. Otherwise, I am all ears. Why make Wiki entires a repository of misinformation? PSRuckman
 * Actually it states the "details" (not "deatils" as you wrote) are "sketchy." Wow, so if you contact a school they might answer your questions. That is so important we should post that on every school page in wikipedia./Sarcasm. Such a claim doesn't need to be included because it is assumed and goes without saying.
 * But I agree with Ruckman that the manner of contact information should be included. Mainly that the address is a PO Box. That really shows that this unaccredited school founded decades ago by an unaccredited professor is at least a questionable "institution." Arbusto 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actucall Arbustooooo, I am STILL waiting for you to be logically consistent in your editing. Why have you not yet put the University in Bob Jones University in quotation marks? PSRuckman

Ar* what's your source for the contention that the Bible school is a hoax and does not exist? Seems your assertion is sort of "sketchy" since you are the first & only person to make it. By the way, do you also think that the Billy Graham Training Center http://www.billygraham.org/Contact_MailingPhoneInfo.asp - gasp! a PO Box in Ashville, NC!! - do you think this is also a hoax? How many other po box hoaxes have you uncovered in your "sort'a sketchy" investigative career? 24*


 * That link you supplied DOES HAVE A STREET ADDRESS listed along with PO Boxes! In fact, its 1 Billy Graham Parkway. You are comparing Billy Graham's schools to Peter Ruckman? HAHAHAHA. Also Graham has a website with details and he has STREET ADDRESSES in Canada and Germany. Lastly, information about Graham's schools are plentiful http://www.billygraham.org/SOE_Index.asp, not vague. Yet, the PO Box (many schools have PO Boxes for mail along with street addresses) alone doesn't make Ruckman's "institute" questionable it a combination of factors. Arbusto 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Give it up 24.* You could draw 5,000 comparisons and Arbustooooooo would drag you down to "Billy starts with a B and Peter starts with a P." PSRuckman

Hola senior A*-o: Billy's school in Ashville does NOT have an address given, and I see only "sketchy" information *snip* I think this exchange is sufficient to prove *snip* POV is causing angst whenever the article is modified to included unbiased information. 24*


 * "The Cove Camp is a ministry of the Billy Graham Training Center, located on 1,500 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains just outside of Asheville, North Carolina." A 1,500 acre PO Box is a very big PO Box and the information is far from vague. How come you have to give us a poor comparison? If you have facts about this Ruckman's "institute" provide them. Arbusto 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Making comments such as the above are unproductive, against wikipedia rules and make people less inclined to listen to you. Also, you may want to take a look at Arbustoo contribution list to Wikipedia here: it is hard to see that as the contrib list of an "antiruckman crusader" unless he happens to spend 99% of his time not crusading. JoshuaZ 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is discussion section, and you are trying to shut me up by your constant accusations of NPA / CIVIL, etc. Such is nothing but *snip* attempt to stop discussion. It is unproductive and frankly tiresome. Stop whining *snip* about my comments. You are not being civil to me. Stop it. WP:AGF When POV appears in A*'s comments and discussions he opens wide the door for those comments to be further commented upon. *snip* 24*


 * 24*, I will not see Joshua attacked. Please be civil.  Arbustoo's reply was also more terse than it could have been, but you have to admit that comparing Ruckman with Billy Graham is absurd.  Do you really think that Ruckman could fill Wembley Stadium?  Billy Graham drew crowds usually seen only for the gods of Rock!  Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Absurd?" How rude and condescending of you JzG. A clear violation of civility. But, speaking of that, how about the rigorous argumentation ... A: If you drive a car, you are a monkey. 24: Billy Graham drives a car and he is not a monkey. A: You are comparing yourself to Billy Graham HO HO HA HA LOL LOL. ... I mean really. PSRuckman


 * Yes, absurd. Billy Graham came to London and drew a crowd of 120,000 in Wembley Statium.  When I saw Queen there on their final tour there were fewer in the audience than that.  Do you genuinely believe that Ruckman would draw a crowd of that size in a foreign country?  Really? Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 09:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, if the point of comparison had anything to do with crowds on a single day, you might have something there. Bad news is, that has nothing to do with anything. Do you genuinely believe it does? Really? Try reading again, real slow. And see if you can convince yourself that no one - except you - compared the two in terms of stadium shows. Hint: Look for mention of a "P.O.Box" PSRuckman


 * Let's see, Billy Graham gets to have a PO Box for his little institute, but anybody else that does so is probably a fraud. Of course Dr. Ruckman does not have all men speaking well of him Luke6:26, could this have something to do with it? His (PSR) soul-winning includes over 91 jails, rather than 91 stadium-busting super-extravaganzas of Christian enterainment, and he failed to hob-nob with the high and mighty. Sorry, Dr. Ruckman, your PO Box is just too "sketchy" for the self-appointed accreditation committee to countenance. 24* 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's called "Institute" not "college" or "university" - so what is the need to pile on regarding nonaccreditation? This seems to be a hobby horse and overkill. One mention is plenty, the rest needs to be deleted. The allegations of "vagueness" (new word for "sketchy") is continuing POV against PBI and this sentece should be removed. The fact is it is a private institute, not public. The allegations of vagueness and lack of a website cast the instite's privacy in an unnecessarily suspicious light. 24* 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
An unsupported edit by JzG was just made, without submitting it to discussion first, that asserts that Dr. Ruckman hold the King James Bible as the only accectable English Bible. Dr. Ruckman's position is more complicated than that. Dr. Ruckman has said that the line of TR versions in English prior to the 1611 King James where also valid for their time (i.e., Wycliff's, the Geneva, etc.). In addition he has stated more than once that a person can learn the gospel and "get saved" by gleaning the truth from modern Bible versions (despite the wreck they make of it), even a JW Bible. His critics have not bothered to appreciated or understand the nuances here. However, I agree that he believes it is the only "acceptable" version for today's english speaker, and is itself (due to divine miricle) the "final authority". 24* 01:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it the King James Best Movement, or the King James Only Movement? And actually I was reverting an "unsupported edit" made "without submitting it to discussion first" by an anonymous editor . Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 10:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A google search on Pensacola Bible Institute links to several hundred gradutes who are pastors, authors, missionaries, etc. A section of "Famous Graduates" for PBI might be in order. 24* 03:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If they have Wikipedia articles. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 10:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

24* and Ruckman you discussed your edits before. They were denied please do not make any more edits unless approved by a consensus. Arbusto 22:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, Arbusto, but it does not fly. Please do not hide your POV edits as minor changes. PSRuckman


 * PSRuckman, please do not blank your talk page. It is an important record of what has been raised with you. If you wish to clear the space simply archive it instead. --Davril2020 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with that option, but I'll give it look. I was primarily responding to the note at the bottom which suggested that it (the file) was too long. In addition, it made sense to adopt Arbusto's broad definition of "vandalism" and recongize that it simply became a place for false accusations and smearing. Perhaps you can share with me how I can observe the "important record" of "what has been raised" with Arbusto. PSRuckman


 * Sure, see How to archive a talk page JoshuaZ 04:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Where is Arbusto's archive? PSRuckman

page move???
could someone please revert this pagemove, this is just plain ridiculous--64.12.116.133 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you think he 'deserves' the title of doctor? even though he isn't one? ok, in that case please move User:64.12.116.133 to Doctor:64.12.116.133, I too feel that I 'deserve' an unearned title--64.12.116.133 23:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, write a dissertation, defend it, and have people recogize you by that title for 40 years and we will think about it. 172.144.58.234 12:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"doctor"
<BLOCKQUOTE style="background:#def">Doctor of Philosophy, usually abbreviated as PhD, Ph.D. or D.Phil. (for the Latin philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae), in English-speaking countries, abbreviated as Dr. or similar in several other countries, is a postgraduate <U>academic</U> degree awarded by universities. - In the United States, the PhD degree is the highest academic degree awarded by universities in most fields of study. (excerpted from wiki PhD article)<P>"Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, B.A., M.A., PhD., attended Kansas State College, University of Alabama, and received his M.A. and Ph.D., from Bob Jones University", which was then unaccredited, but has since become accredited. With a photographic memory, reading "at a rate of 700 words" per minute, Dr. Ruckman had already managed to read "about 6,500 books", by the time he received his doctorate at BJU, graduating at the top of his class. The founder of the University, "Bob Jones, Sr., considered Peter S. Ruckman to be the brightest student to ever graduate from his college and wanted him to stay on staff and TEACH." (http://www.sluiceboxadventures.com/rearguard6_ruckman.htm) <BR>Telpardec (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC) </BLOCKQUOTE>

article seems to indicate that he is not a doctor of anything, yet it refers to him as Dr.Peter Ruckman? why, other than the fact that he's been editing his own article, does it do that?--64.12.116.133 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Even his own website doesn't try to claim this--64.12.116.133 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of a source for him being a doctor? other than wikipedia itself? Even his own website claims that he has a Bachelor of Arts, other than in self-reference, where does the "dr." come from?--64.12.116.133 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not certain 64.12.116.133 should be allowed to suggest that Ruckman is editing his own article. There is a better than average chance the topic of the article doesn't even know the article exists and could hardly care less. The man doesn't even use a computer! Despite the fact that quite some effort has been put into editing the article by JzG, Arbusto, Arbustoo, JoshuaZ and others, 64.12.116.133 comes out of nowhere and destroys the work. Time for integrity folks. 172.132.37.135 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and furthermore, we have had extensive discussions on this page and on User Talk:PSRuckman about whether or not he should have the honorific "Dr." The consensus is that he should not. A good check is to look at the article on Albert Einstein and note how many times he is given the title. JoshuaZ 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the addition of the block quote to slip in the dr. title, according to MOS:BIO-wikipedia style manual, even if he did have an accredited degree, you can't use the title unless he is a medical doctor. But moreover, I don't care that his personal website deceives readers by calling himself a dr. that unneeded quote is spam added to circumvent consensus. He needs to go and complete an accredited med. school to add the title. Arbusto 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "medical doctor" is incorrectly used instead of "physician" (with a doctor's degree). - Curt

Reference to pdf file
When I try to bring up the third reference (the pdf linking to www.dbts.edu), it comes back with "There were errors processing your request:

* The countrycode of your domain is unknown.

Please correct your input"

Could somebody else check this to make sure it isn't just my connection. Thanks Mgroop 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody has verified this link, so I am going to assume that it is bad. I am going to remove the statement and the reference. If anyone can find a working reference, please go ahead a reinsert the statement.Mgroop 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Style
I'v tried to smooth out the grammar and syntax of this biography. I'm sure I've stepped on some toes in the process. So go back at it, gentlemen. Just try to be grammatical. --John Foxe 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Grammar and syntax should not offend any intelligent or fair-minded person. On the other hand, the POV and disregard of previous work on this article - obtained after elaborate discussion - is annoying. It is well known that PSR was a close, personal friend of Bob Jones Sr. Go to any BJU web site or blog anywhere and ask anyone. It is as well known as the fact that the man is an artist. Thus, by deleting the interesting and relevent information you are only showing that you are not editing in good-faith OR that you are exceptionally uninformed about this topic and should honestly limit yourself to editing grammar and syntax. Wiki competitors certainly thank you for reducing the quality of this product.


 * Sorry. I need a citation.  If it has no citation, I don't believe it.--John Foxe 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, will you allow me to now remove everything from the article that does not have citation? Let's do this thing.
 * I'd be happy to have you remove everything that's undocumented. We should make an article like this one stand as firmly on four feet as we can.
 * And how about getting a photograph of Dr. Ruckman?--John Foxe 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, the assertion that he is "best" known for this or that is undocumented. Why do you insist in re-inserting it? Or, re-insert it with a reference which suggests that it is even half-way accurate.
 * In addition, you are also removing an edit which corrects a statement that is both false and undocumented. There is no citation provided either. Ruckman's view regarding the KJV are limited to English speaking persons. Is it even really possible that you do not know that? The tradition here is to assume good faith, but you are making that very difficult. Please allow the correction of the false and undocumented statement.
 * You edited before you read my changes. I had left "English speakers" there. Even so, this statement should  be documented.
 * There's nothing out of place with White's critique where it should be, in the body of the article. You haven't argued it isn't true, and the quotations you allowed to remain give good evidence that it is. --John Foxe 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I just want to document that you are forcing a POV in the article. And you are doing just fine. Whether I argue what you are forcing in the article is true or not makes no difference to you whatsoever, so there is no reason to offer that up in bad faith. Ruckman calls Custer a liar (in the passage you selected), for example, because Custer's makes false claims regarding Ruckman's divorce (which can be easily seen by looking at public records). Ruckman's book produced the records to document Custer was a liar. Do you care? Of course not. Too busy cheerleading. Second, I did not "allow" the statements to stand so much as I understood, in advance, that you have a fanatical interest in imposing your view and have more time on your hands, so there is no need to try too hard to clean up after you. Finally, I am sorry that you are depressed that Ruckman was a friend of Jones, Sr. Maybe you can paint the color of the sky in your world some other way.
 * If you wish to make this a stronger article by providing additional citations and documented material, I will be glad to help.--John Foxe 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you decide to make it less POV and more factual, let me know. You have not documented that Custer is a "frequent" target. You have only asserted it. Please document it or allow language that is more accurate. I would be happy to assist you in making it less silly and fanatical.
 * I'm completely satisfied with the changes that you've made.--John Foxe 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit war or remove items without providing any justification. At least pretend to be fair and reasonable. You have insisted (against request) on taking the time to force POV into this entry. You have also rejected reasonable alternatives 1) putting POV in an "opinion" section or 2) allowing points of view other than your own - or the one's you want to allow. Of course, removing POV altogether would be the ideal thing, but I well understand you zeal to bias the entry.

Please follow Wikipedia rules
Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes.--John Foxe 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

John Foxe, Please remember not to edit war. In several instances, you have made changes without offering any justification whatsoever. In each instance, you have edited material cosistent with the standards that you have used to force material into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.216.22 (talk • contribs)

John Foxe, Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for you to force POV in articles. If you insist on forcing POV into an article, consider categorizing it as "opinion" or allowing others to trash the article with their opinion as well. In other words, be a little less clumsy about concealing your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.216.22 (talk • contribs)

Film scripts
I am highly suspicious of this sentence which I've removed: "During his studies at BJU, he produced two screen plays for "nationally acclaimed Christian films."Holland (Michigan) Evening Sentinel, Aug. 22, 1958; Jan. 5 and Dec. 30, 1960 (see "Unusual Films" at Bob Jones University).

There were no major BJU films produced during this period, and the editor who posted this information has provided no names for these screen plays. And why the citation to an obscure Michigan newspaper from the 1950s? Certainly the editor must have taken this information from a secondary source.--John Foxe 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "obscure" (meaning one you are ignorant of) public newspaper is/should not be credited as much as an obscure partisan like James White. Who is he anyway? If he is someone worth citing in such a lenghty manner, why is there not Wiki entry for him? I am suspicious that such a virtual unknown receives so much attention in this entry. Are you his dad? brother in law? what? I am assuming you did no research - standard - before you did the edit war routine. One of the films you were unable to discover was the first to win all four major awards from the National Evangelical Film Foudation. The United Film Producers Association selected it to represent in Cannes. Another film you could not find was also filmed for and selected as a representative at Cannes. Please consider lifting the cloud of laziness and ignorance you are imposing from this entry. It can't be normal that it means so much to you.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.201.150 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I've reverted part of your edit since you took out part of Ruckman's education. Other than that, I'm inclined to agree. JoshuaZ 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. That was simple carelessness. Thanks for catching that so quickly, Joshua.--John Foxe 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumb and Dumber
Among the more less intelligent things on this page (there are so many to choose from) is the statement that Ruckman became a critic of BJU because of its stance on Bible translations. Even the biased individuals who lord over this page know Ruckman's condemnation of BJU is much more far-sweeping than that. Why, even someone with the low research skills of JohnFoxe (who can't find a newspaper in a state, and is "skeptical" of anything he is unable to research) knows Ruckman is exceptionally critical of BJU's "codes" of conduct (an incredible list of do's and dont's) and its attempt to micro-manage the spirituality of its students. Foxe owns (and seemingly druels over) Ruckman's books. He can't possibly be so dumb as to not know this. Likewise, Ruckman is fantastically critical of BJU's attempt to be "artsy" and competitive with the secular world. I could go on. As such, the statement that Ruckman is critical of BJU because of its stance on Bible translations is misleading at best, and otherwise false. It should be removed or modified. I realize that, given the fact that Foxe, Arbustoo and Joshua live to make this page stink (because they were unable to have it removed altogether), and the fact that what I just wrote is entirely accurate, that I have just condemned the suggestion to the underworld. It is worth it, however, just to see them complain (with great focus) about the lack of four ~'s and cry "vandalism" (aka attempting to remove the stench of their bias). Ho Ho Ho.

Wine of Morning
Ruckman seems to have had no part in the screen play for "Wine of Morning." See the credits here.--John Foxe 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Saw that coming - the "I have no research skills" routine. You have been directed to the opening credits (a direct source) and two newspaper articles (indirect source). You negate them all on the basis of your bias and one indirect source. This coming from the same "mind" that rejected the two newspaper articles outright, because they were indirect. As clearly stated, IMDb is partial and incomplete. But, of course, the main point is, you have time and all of the personal passion to stink up this entry. Did Ruckman insult one of your gods? Why are you so insistent on making this an attack page? Let's just continue to document what a biased hatchet artist you are. Send my best to everyone else in the cave :-) Now, get back to work on that great ad campaign you have going on that James White entry. Fantastic marketing.


 * You're both wrong. Ruckman is credited at the beginning of the film for production of the screen play via "additional dialogue." So, which one of you is Ryan Jordan? PSRuckman 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
You cannot add material to this article without proper citation.--John Foxe 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.--John Foxe 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, I have removed "He later became a rancorous critic of BJU because it endorsed translations other than the King James Version of the Bible" as there is no citation whatsoever. Keep dancin'

"The Separatist"
I have access to this newsletter and can make a copy available to whomever needs to see it. No refutation of the radioactive comment was made at the time, and perhaps another editor can find an additional citation.--John Foxe 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thousands have had access to the paper you censor and it has been around for almost a hundred years.


 * Refutations have never had any impact on your full time vandalism of this page. That is correct.

Great News for This Page
http://www.tech2.com/india/news/internet/wikipedia-t-check-users-credentials/4666/0 PSRuckman 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

gossip
I have heard Dr. Ruckman say with my own ears say that he has never and will never add or remove to any information or gossip regarding himself posted to any website. He does not own a computer, has never been online via email or net surfing, he types all of his materials on an old fashion typewriter. nancy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.253.141 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Merging Ruckmanite Article
The result was merge into Peter Ruckman
 * Support I Propose merging the Article Ruckmanite into this one. That article is small and poorly written, it would benefit from being part of this article. It is a minor addition to this page, and would receive better attention in this article.Mgroop 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--John Foxe 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SupportThe satirical nature of the larger entry needs to be made more obvious to those who bring trust to this source. 74.135.219.40

"Ruckmanite"
I have eliminated the heading and the term "Ruckmanite" from this article because it has no citation. The term certainly did not arise from "liberal Bible critics"; my guess is that it originated with evangelicals and fundamentalists, perhaps even other KJV-Only supporters. I also notice that some "Ruckmanites" themselves use the term. If someone is interested in defining the term on this page, the definition should be thoroughly documented, otherwise we have only POV gossip.--John Foxe 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. I simply merged the two articles. The description sounded fishy to me, but I thought I would let somebody else make that decision. BTW, all followers of Peter Ruckman that I have personally known refer to themselves as "Ruckmanites". Mgroop 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Independent Baptist?
Is Ruckman an Independent Baptist or merely an independent Baptist? Should this article link to Independent Baptist?--orlady 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a conundrum. Is an independent Baptist scorned by most independent Baptists an Independent Baptist even though the latter are, by definition, not defined by an organization?  Perhaps an independent or Independent Baptist can enlighten us.--John Foxe 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I answered my question. Still-extant online versions of the deleted article Independent Baptist College (which appears to have been written by Independent Baptists) call Ruckman "Independent Baptist." http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Independent:Baptist:College.htm says:
 * Most independent Baptist church pastors have one or two schools they recommend. The pastor trusts the school usually because he has either been there himself or knows a few of the staff there and is comfortable with their position and stand. This, combined with the "traffic" of parents and children to and from the church/college in question, fosters a working relationship between the two churches that can include attending conferences and promotion of materials.


 * This type of networking expands and eventually creates a cadre of churches that stand with each other and with the pastor and church of the college in question, and multiple groups are created in this way. Hyles-Anderson College(Dr. Jack Hyles(deceased)/Dr. Jack Schaap), Crown College(Dr. Clarence Sexton), and Pensacola Bible Institute (Dr. Peter Ruckman) are examples of colleges that have formed their own groups. Not all colleges have such groups form around them.
 * --orlady 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As an Independent Baptist myself. Yes, Peter Ruckman is an independent Baptist, by definition. He is a Baptist not affiliated with any convention. orlady basically nailed it on the head with the response. Basically you can determine what kind of a church you are in by what college they recommend (not necessarily which one they went too, many Pastors that went to Tennessee Temple University in the 1970s do not recommend it today). There are a few major ones. Hyles-Anderson College, Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, and Peter Ruckman's PBI are perhaps the main ones, although those who went to Crown College (etc) may disagree with me. I would consider myself a "Pensacola Christian" Independent Baptist. Not because we have a formed convention or official group, but because I agree with their doctrinal stand more than anybody else. For example on the issue of King-James-Only Movement (and please no fights over which is correct), Bob Jones teaches that the eclectic text is the correct Greek text. PCC teaches that the Textus Receptus is the correct Greek text. Ruckman teaches that none of that matters, the King James is re-inspired. But a person that got a Bible degree from any of these colleges would fit the mold of an Independent Baptist Church. All that to say, if you go into a "Independent Baptist" Church, you will find very different things based on who they follow. None are any less or any more "Independent Baptist" than the other, but some are more predominant than others. Mgroop 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mgroop and orlady. I'll buy that.  (Can't say I've ever seen a quotation from a deleted article brought into evidence before, but the quotation itself seems reasonable enough.)--John Foxe 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Ruckman read Greek and Hebrew? (Yes.)
Can Ruckman actually read Greek and Hebrew? I know that the USA (esp. in the 19th century) has probably had more Christian 'fractionism' than any other country, but I would like to know if this probably well-meaning if eccentric man has any knowledge of the original languages (whether or not he believes them to be original or not - any sane encyclopedia would of course take it for granted that they are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.113.252 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * <B>Yes.</B> According to an undated Pensacola Bible Institute course outline catalog someone gave me in 1975, and other sources, he can Read, Write, Speak and Teach both Hebrew and Greek. Other classes include Archaeology and Geology, and of course Bible teaching. With a photographic memory, reading "at a rate of 700 words" per minute, he had already managed to read "about 6,500 books", by the time he received his doctorate (MA & PhD) at BJU, graduating at the top of his class. By the age of 50, he had "read and assimilated" more than 12,000 books, maintaining an average of more than one book per day unto this present time.
 * The founder of Bob Jones University (BJU), "Bob Jones, Sr., considered Peter S. Ruckman to be the brightest student to ever graduate from his college and wanted him to stay on staff and TEACH. Brother Ruckman declined, thinking that God wanted him to be an evangelist, not a TEACHER." (He ended up as both and more.)
 * http://www.sluiceboxadventures.com/rearguard6_ruckman.htm


 * Dr. Ruckman is 89 years of age, as of 19 Nov 2010. In recent videos he seems quite weary with the infirmities of old age. <BR>Telpardec (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability
I have tagged the article for notability. It's not clear why this person is notable. The article appears to lack reliable, secondary sources that establish notability. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ruckman has sixty books in LOC—which also holds one book dedicated to attacking him. Considering all the third-rate actors and obscure band members on Wikipedia, Ruckman clears the notability bar in spades. I've removed the notability tag.--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but if that is the case where are the reliable, secondary sources that establish his notability in the article ? Where is the evidence of his notability ? It should be obvious from the article and to me it isn't. In what sense does the article comply with WP:PEOPLE ? Other articles are irrelevant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are three books that deal with Ruckman's ideas:
 * Robert Leslie Hymers, The Ruckman Conspiracy (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1989.)
 * David Henry Sorenson, Touch not the unclean thing : the text issue and separation (Duluth, Minn. :Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2002) “Summary: The three major textual positions of fundamentalists, the basic error of Peter Ruckman, ….”
 * James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995).
 * I think the problem may be that while Ruckman is radioactively known within a small circle, you might not realize how significant he is if you're coming from outside that circle. Let me suggest either a Third Opinion or (if you really feel strongly about the issue) putting up an AfD. Maybe in the early days of Wikipedia, Ruckman would not have been considered notable, but I don't think a fellow who gets sixty hits in LOC and has started a Bible institute for his followers is going to get zapped today.--John Foxe (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)--John Foxe (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to nominate it for deletion and I don't have any feelings about it. I have no reason believe that he isn't notable but I don't see evidence that he is. You're right, "known within a small circle, you might not realize how significant he is if you're coming from outside that circle." is really my point. I stumbled across the article while tracking some external links during a clean up elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the circle at all so I'm coming to the article having to rely only on what the article actually says. I don't think a third opinion is required. I guess what's required is for people who do know about him to maybe add a bit of coverage about him and/or his books from reliable sources in the media. If he's notable it should be pretty easy to find the material. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Ruckman is a big frog in a small pond, there's lots of commentary about him from the pond, but I don't know whether you'd consider it "reliable sources in the media." For instance, note the external links cited below the article. And what about this remarkable piece in which Richard Dawkins is compared with Ruckman—with the assumption that the reader is more familiar with Ruckman than Dawkins.--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Other ideas
I've tagged the other ideas section as original research as it appears to be based of wiki editor's readings/interpretations of primary sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. I think the information is also cited in White's book cited earlier in the article, and if all that's necessary is a mention of the primary source in a secondary source, I'll go find it. Nevertheless, enough of the actual wording is given in the notes to make it clear that these ideas are indeed Ruckman's rather than an editor's interpretation.--John Foxe (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to restore it until the issues have been addressed. For example, "Ruckman has many ideas that differ from those of typical Baptist fundamentalists." It's not clear who said that. It can't be us. Perhaps it was White. We as Wikipedia appear to have selected information from primary sources rather than used secondary sources to do that on our behalf per WP:SECONDARY. The secondary sources are supposed to make the observations, draw conclusions etc based on the primary sources. In other words the section reads like we are a secondary source when we are supposed to be tertiary. Ruckman probably says all sorts of things in his books so without secondary sources to pick what they (rather than we) regard as important/notable it's not clear why these things were picked. Perhaps using White's book and other secondary sources can resolve that. Using the primary sources directly in a way that complies with the section about primary sources in WP:SECONDARY is fine but without secondary sources selecting and summarizing the material, original research seems pretty unavoidable unless we use Ruckman's own words in the primary sources to express his views or at least be very careful about describing his views. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a day or so without the tag and I'll see if I can find citations to secondary sources.--John Foxe (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, White mentions nothing that appears in that paragraph, but I did find a secondary reference in the fundamentalist Lutheran newsletter, Christian News (New Haven, Missouri). Good enough?--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1974 I met Peter Ruckman. I was 19 and on my way to Baptist Bible College in Springfield Missouri. I spent a week in a bible camp and he was the featured speaker every day. I can say this about the man, he was very inspirational and an awesome speaker. His chaulk drawings during his sermons were amazing. The man had real graphical talant and inspiration from God. He would call out bible verses and the first to read it in the crowd got the drawing for the sermon. But there is more to my story: I had a 1972 Mustang fastback and Rev. Ruckman needed to go a cleaners to have his suit done. I had the privilage of taking him there and back. I am not sure how he got the suit back but it was a privilage to pull back my seat so he could sit in the car. I will always remember Rev. Ruckman as a man of God who had an influence on my life. He really is a great man of God. 1611 AV that's the book for me.. I stand alone on the Word of God 1611 AV!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.244.253 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruckman's "Confrontational style"
Hi, John Foxe. I see you re-inserted the following material:

What is the source for the second sentence (about labeling a rival a "puffed up conceited ass")? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the broken link. I've replaced it with another on-line source quoting Ruckman's paper.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming up with something that lets us view the remark and also see it in context; I didn't know if I was having a browser problem or if something else was afoot with the other citation. I never really doubted that he called a rival a "puffed up conceited ass", based on the other items I've read herein.  I actually know very little about the subject of this article (nothing really), and I assume he's probably rubbed a lot of people the wrong way over the years.  If I suddenly found myself standing in a room with him in RL, I doubt I'd like him much.  That being said, my concerns with editing the article today primarily have to do with WP:BLP, in that so much of the article is focused negatively on the subject.  He may be a very dislikable individual with a long history of being difficult, but a living person's biographical article needs to be written from a conservative perspective, with only high quality secondary reliable sources when including potentially contentious material.  Based on the sourcing for the three statements above, this material seem to me like a mix of original research and synthesis in folding it into this section, along with a non-neutral POV perspective when writing in Wikipedia's voice.  To be blunt, why is it worthy of inclusion in a BLP that he called his alma mater "the World's Most Unusual Hell Hole"?  Or that he referred to another version of the bible as "godless depraved crap"?  The comment is repulsive to many I'm sure, but unless secondary reliable sources are discussing it and with some notabilty, I think it would be better to leave these things out.  Your thoughts on the matter?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on what you consider "reliable sources." If you mean the sort of scholarship on which Wikipedia articles normally rely, you won't find them; and therefore it could be argued that Ruckman isn't WP notable at all. Nevertheless, for many years there's been no attempt to do an AfD.  As I said above, because Ruckman's a big frog in a small pond, commentary about him comes almost only from the pond. Even so, note this remarkable piece in which Richard Dawkins is compared with Ruckman—with the assumption that the reader is more familiar with Ruckman than Dawkins.--John Foxe (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the link. If you're thinking this article should go to AfD based on poor sourcing, I'm good with that.  In the interim, let's drop this material from the article based on the BLP concerns above.  Sound good?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that most of the other references in this article are in the same category as the ones you want to drop. I'd rather keep everything that's currently there and let you go for an AfD. Otherwise, I think you need to explain why some poor sources are better than other poor sources.--John Foxe (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not focused on getting into the sourcing for some of the other material here; if you're thinking there is considerable content that should also be removed based on poor sourcing, please go ahead and remove it. With regard to the three sentences above, I'm thinking they need to go because this is a BLP and there are issues therein.  Since I'm thinking they should come out, and you're thinking they should stay in, I propose we put a question to the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard and let others comment on it.  Sound good?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--John Foxe (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition is not synonymous with support
In the section "King James Version Suppremacy" in the third paragraph James White is identified as a supporter of the King James Only Movement. This *might* be true if Mahmoud Abbas was also a supporter of Israel. James White is an outspoken and staunch opponent of the King James Only Movement (Not that there actually is such a "movement"). The words "Other supporters" needs to be changed to "Opposers". James White's anti-KJVOnly stance is made abundantly clear on his own ministry website- http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoDavoDavo (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation to White is documentation for the statement that other supporters [besides Ruckman] of the KJV Only movement reject Ruckman's position. The sentence doesn't imply that White supports the KJV-Only position, just that he's providing documentation for the statement.  We could add a clarification to the footnote if you think the citation is confusing.  (The term "King James Only movement" is used because that's the name of the Wikipedia article about it.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, would you take Mahmoud Abbas' account of what Benjamin Netanyahu thinks about zionism? Why wouldn't you go to the source rather than rely upon the opinion of a staunch adversary of the movment?  If James White is citing a KJVOnly supporter then, at least for clarity's sake, the KJVOnly supporter should be cited and not James White.  I don't think the citation should be altered to include the source that James White is referencing, I think that James White can not be used as a credible source for expert knowledge about a movement he frequently mis-represents and is staunchly opposed to.60.231.26.206 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement that other KJV-Only proponents reject Ruckman's position. That being the case, I've added the clarification that White is an opponent of the KJV-Only position and added a link to David Cloud's website as an example of a KJV-Only proponent who rejects Ruckman's position.--John Foxe (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. There are other KJVOnly advocates who reject Ruckman's position but it shouldn't be expressed to the reader as a KJVOnlyists vs Dr Ruckman kind of scenario.  Surely you know that there are as many varying beliefs among the KJVOnly "camp" as there are within almost any faction (religious or political).  Those who don't support Dr Ruckman often don't support each other's perspective on the subject matter either.  Take Ron Tagliapietra and Samuel Schnaiter who authored a book together (Bible Preservation and the Providence of God) on the subject of Bible preservation and the KJV.  They oppose Ruckman but they also don't agree with each other on everything either.  David Cloud also confesses that he is in fellowship with men who don't agree with his view on Ruckman (http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/bibverissue.html).  Neither is Ruckman on his own in his stance on KJVOnlyism (take Gail Riplinger for example).  So some further clarification is needed in your paragraph.  May I suggest you begin the final sentence in this paragraph with "Some supporters of the..." or "Certain other supporters of the..." as I believe this more accurately portrays the situation as it is.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gail Riplinger is the only contemporary, published supporter of Peter Ruckman's ideas that I know of—and ironically, she's also thrice married and twice divorced. I'll stick her in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since you don't seem to know the man very well, here's a few more names to add to your list. In addition to Gail Riplinger other published supporters of Peter Ruckman include: Lester Roloff, Bob Grey and Hugh Pyle.  All of these author's writings are contemporary with Ruckman's writings and I'm sure I could find others too.  The start of the sentence reads fine now but the change you made to footnote 12 needs updating.  The way it is worded at the moment it looks like Gail Riplinger is the only published supporter of Peter Ruckman but this is obviously not true.  May I suggest the end of footnote 12 could read - "...supported by other respected authors such as Hugh Pyle, Lester Roloff, Bob Grey and Gail Riplinger." in order to more accurately reflect things as they are.  Shocking as it may seem to you these men weren't divorced twice and married thrice.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to add these names if you can provide citations demonstrating that these men believe that the KJV provides "advanced revelation" beyond that discernible in the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text and/or that the KJV is more authoritative for English speakers than the Greek and Hebrew texts.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to shortcut that process for you by pointing out that there are no original greek and hebrew manuscripts. How could the original manuscripts be (notice the tense) superior when they don't exist? Do we throw out logic to satisfy your desire to rubbish men of far superior intellect that yours?DavoDavoDavo (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack Hyles - The Need for an Every Word Bible; Lester Roloff - http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/blessed.html; Hugh Pyle - April 8 1994 Sword of the Lord newspaper.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the Roloff piece, and it had nothing to do with Ruckman's notions. Why did you link to it?--John Foxe (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd have done any reading before telling tales about a man you don't even know you'd have read some of the works of Ruckman's contemporaries who agree with him. By the time you've read a couple of Lester Roloff's publications you'll see that his term- "Blessed Book" refers to the King James Bible.  His phrase- "the Book that has all the answers" is a statement that means a lot of things one of those things being that the King James Bible has the answers that the "original" Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic MSS can't give you.  His sentence- "The Bible is a DIVINE REVELATION." is a qualifying statement denoting that the King James Bible can reveal 'all the answers' via divine revelation.  Further support for the *fact* that Lester Roloff agrees with Ruckman in all critical matters is that Peter Ruckman himself has publicly said so (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4x6TLmCi0k) calling Roloff a "Ruckmanite". DavoDavoDavo (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a big interpretative jump, fine for the pulpit but not for Wikipedia. Lots of folks believe the Bible is a divine revelation without adopting any of Ruckman's notions. I wouldn't be surprised if Roloff were a "Ruckmanite," but for this article we'd need more proof than Ruckman's say-so.--John Foxe (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've shown you the 'who' it's now up to you to turn off your TV and do some *real* research to find out 'where' the appropriate quotes can be found which you deem suitable for a Wikipedia article. As it stands your article is in error and needs cleaning up.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone can edit Wikipedia articles and no one owns them; so if you find additional evidence, feel free to include it. I'll do the same.--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What a convenient way for you to dispense with your responsibility to represent another person's character truthfully when you're writing their bio. You want to reserve the right to be chief editor but you think others can concern themselves with the hard work of gathering the Truth for you.  You're like the policeman that arrests a black youth for vagrancy and ignores the fact that due to racism black families have been destroyed and demoralized and as a result a very high percentage of black youths end up on the streets.  You're like the prison warden who couldn't care less that a prisoner had been wrongly imprisoned and sees it as their job to make life hell for all criminals.  Or like the wife-basher who believes that the womens lib movement began because husbands weren't tough enough on their wives.  You say to yourself - "I've got what I want and unless you can prove me wrong in court I'm keepin it!"  The victims of child abuse don't get their day in court.  The victims of violent crimes usually don't get their day in court.  The wrongly accused are always assumed guilty.  Justice isn't served until someone makes it their own responsibility to put a stop to dishonesty and misrepresentation.  You're wrong about Peter Ruckman.  You have an opportunity to put the record straight or to be just another one of those oxygen thieves who go about taking from others what they couldn't possibly have earned for themselves - CREDIBILITY!DavoDavoDavo (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you continue to contribute to Wikipedia (and I hope you do—I find it a satisfying leisure time activity), you'll discover that being polite to others is both good strategy and gets more accomplished. Usually works that way in real life too.--John Foxe (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Spare me your platitudes and your hypocrisy. Misrepresenting somebody is "being polite to others" is it?  Rubbishing a man's name who has selflessly served others (saved and unsaved) all his life and reducing his life-long scholarship to innuendo about his alleged poor character is "being polite" IS IT?  You're a proud conceited ass!  Compared to Peter Ruckman what have you ever achieved?  You're nothing!DavoDavoDavo (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Spare me your platitudes and your hypocrisy. Misrepresenting somebody is "being polite to others" is it?  Rubbishing a man's name who has selflessly served others (saved and unsaved) all his life and reducing his life-long scholarship to innuendo about his alleged poor character is "being polite" IS IT?  You're a proud conceited ass!  Compared to Peter Ruckman what have you ever achieved?  You're nothing!DavoDavoDavo (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ruckman's divorce
Hi, John Foxe. Regarding the change I made here, the intention was to remove the oversized quote to a primary source being used to source the straightforward fact that Ruckman is twice divorced. The rest of the quoted material isn't straightforward and contains a lot of sordid details for a BLP. If the fact we're trying to source is that Ruckman is twice divorced, why include things like Gospel articles torn out of typewriters, destroyed artwork, people throwing themselves out of cars, threats of beatings, etc? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just a footnote. My intent was to communicate that these divorces were messy. If the material is "sordid," then it's sordidness provided by Ruckman himself.  Furthermore, Ruckman glories in his confrontational style, so the material's helpful to the reader in gaining a better understanding of the man.--John Foxe (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a BLP using a primary source citation, I'm thinking the article shouldn't be trying to communicate "sordid" details this way beyond the point we're trying to source. As we've done before, I'll post a note on the sources board to see if we can get other editor's opinions.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I second that course.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Ruckman best known for" citation
I noticed that the first citation in the article, offered apparently to source the contention that Ruckman is perhaps best known for his assertion that the KJV constitutes "advanced revelation" and is the "final word of God" (I assume this is true?) is cited to a lengthy footnote that offers a book Ruckman wrote, then goes on for 139 words expanding on criticisms of Ruckman by one of his critics, which appears to be cherry-picked material strung together to present a POV and sourced to that critic's personal website. What would the relevance of "strange ideas", "multiple divorces", "angry spirits", and an "Alexandrian cult mentality" have to do with sourcing Ruckman's specific beliefs in advanced revelation and the final word of God? Maybe a better source citation could be developed; based on BLP concerns in the interim, I'm going to pare that material back to something more relevant. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me.--John Foxe (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

King James Version Supremacy supported by more people than just Gail Riplinger
In the subsection titled "King James Version Supremacy" in the third paragraph it is suggested that Dr Peter Ruckman is only supported by Gail Riplinger. However, Kyle Stephens has recently published a book in which the supremacy of the King James Version is argued at length. Since Dr Peter Ruckman is constantly painted as almost being a minority of one it is important that Kyle Stephens name is added to Note 12, if not included in the body of the text itself.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no problem per se with adding other names here, but the people should be Wikipedia notable; that is, they should be important enough to have their own referenced Wikipedia articles. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the KJV position, and I've never heard of Stephens before. Enlighten me.--John Foxe (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving you the man's biography. Nor do I believe that the qualifier "Wikipedia notable" is anything other than a subjective judgement of an individual. You can read about Kyle Stephens' work here and here and you can obtain his book here.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that asking that Stephens be Wikipedia notable is going too far. But to be cited here, he needs some sort of credentials.--John Foxe (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP Notice board
User:John Foxe has been repeatedly adding absurd comments about aliens and other crap from blogs and other unreliable sources. He has been editing this article since 2006 and has had many editors challenge his poor sources over the years but he continues to ignore the community standards about adding libelous and defaming material to a biography of a living person and also ignores the standards of reliable sources concerning BLP's. He has been warned on his talk page and stated:'''I refuse. Either report me or express your complaints on the article talk page so that they can be discussed by the community.'''--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC) So he has been reported as he refused to follow Wikipedia standards about an BLP here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ruckman 208.54.39.193 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable material moved out of the article for BLP review
After seeing Cullen328's post on the BLP noticeboard and reviewing the material in this BLP again, I'm struck by the contentious items sourced to primary sources (i.e., the subjects words from his books, church bulletins, and sermons) that appear to be put together in such a way as to paint the subject in as unflattering and negative light as possible. The real Peter Ruckman may indeed be a very disagreeable and dislikeable person who has the beliefs of a loon, but Wikipedia BLPs are supposed to adhere to the highest quality sources and follow a neutral point of view. Strong secondary reliable sources discussing Ruckman's beliefs, presented with due weight and highlighting/commenting accordingly, would make this material appropriate. Using primary sources to cherry pick ridiculous, outrageous, and offensive statements by the subject and stringing them together to present a particular (negative) point of view is a misuse of primary sourcing, is polemical, and clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia's core policy on NPOV. Accordingly, I'm moving the below material out of the article and here onto the Talk Page for further discussion and review with anyone who is interested. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
From a Wikipedia prospective, I completely understand the problems of retaining the deleted material in the article. Nevertheless, when you have a subject like Peter Ruckman who's so far outside the mainstream that he generates little attention from the sort of "strong secondary reliable sources" on which one would hope to base such an article, we have to take what we can get. This article has been AfDed at least three times; each time, it's been saved, even though most of the other citations also emanate from the same sort of publications as this "crazy as a loon" stuff. If the subject is indeed notable, and the other material comes from the same sort of sources, then by deliberately excising Ruckman's more unusual mental aberrations, we're concealing information that would be helpful to the reader.--John Foxe (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The material that violated WP:BLP was removed to re-establish credibility to the article and reposting them will only lead to more problems and likely sanctions as stated by the reviewing admin. Here is the BLP investigation link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=647587458#Peter_Ruckman It is clear consensus with admin oversight that it is against Wikipedia policy to re-add such unreliable material to a BLP were we definitely do not practice a take what we can get cavalier editing style. Again Wikipedia is not a place to conduct religious warfare against persons who have religious opinions (however non-mainstream) that vary from our own. Additionally BLP's are no place for COI editing. Bob Jones, Sr. is another outside the mainstream lightening rod individual due to his poor history concerning race relations and campus sex abuse handling but I am sure John would not like to see such poorly sourced material, of which there is much out there, added to that article that he has worked hard on to paint the best possible image (some real COI issues with that article as well). The standard must be applied evenly John. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (172.56.15.75, you've been warned about WP:OUTING elsewhere, and it would be prudent to self-edit this post to remove material that might reveal my identity.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat what I wrote last year, that the material saved is no better sourced than the material removed; the latter simply portrays Ruckman in a more unfavorable light and was removed because it violated WP:BLP. That reason no longer applies because the subject is dead.--John Foxe (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the latter material is that it's intended to portray the subject in an unfavorable light, drawn from primary sources cherry picked to serve that agenda. Dead or alive, it isn't appropriate encyclopedic treatment of a subject's biography.  The situation might be different if there was quality material from secondary sources discussing the same.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me rather that excluding this material eliminates important information about the subject simply because it's unfavorable. Would you be willing to discuss this matter in some venue where more members of the community could participate? I'll be glad to follow your suggestion about where the issue could best be discussed.--John Foxe (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really sure where else there would be a better venue to have that discussion. There is the article's talk page here, and then there is the BLP noticeboard, where the issue was addressed previously.  However, you could probably use the WP:RFC process to start a new thread here, which would then invite uninvolved editors to come and express their views on the issue and potentially provide the community participation you're seeking.  The best format for the RFC would be just a single neutral question such as "Should the following material be included in this article?", followed by the material itself.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sounds reasonable, though I haven't had much success with RFC in the past. I'll think about it for a while.--John Foxe (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New discussion of material removed before Ruckman died
I've readded the material that has was removed after a discussion at BLP. I maintain that since Ruckman is deceased, the BLP discussion is now moot. He's dead; this article is no longer a BLP.

Further, AzureCitizen has argued that the material is has been "drawn from primary sources cherry picked...to portray the subject in an unfavorable light." But he provides no evidence. I agree the material has been taken largely (though not entirely) from primary sources, but I deny the material has been cherry picked except in the sense that the quotations provided are excellent summaries of Ruckman's views. If another editor thinks he can cherry pick the same sources for opposing views or views that portray Ruckman in a more favorable light, by all means have at it. The Ruckman I've quoted is real article, and there's no reason to hide the blustering cocksuredness that many of his supporters enjoyed most about him.--John Foxe (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your re-introduction again, based on the objections raised by myself and other editors previously both here and on the noticeboard. You may have forgotten that an administrator there cautioned you about inserting "poorly sourced and obviously defamatory content" (see diff); you need to build consensus here on the Talk Page for the material first, as you are the only editor pushing for this controversial content.  You still have the option of starting an WP:RfC in order to bring more uninvolved editors to participate; what did you decide with regard to that?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That comment only applied to BLP. Ruckman is dead. Prior comments on the BLP noticeboard are now moot.
 * I decided not to begin the WP:RfC process until the question is fully debated here. Perhaps you and I are the only interested parties. The ball's in your court to answer my two objections: 1. that the BLP discussion is irrelevant now that Ruckman is dead (he can be "defamed" no longer); and 2. that I've done no cherry picking of sources—something you've accused me of but given no evidence for. (For instance, you might argue that Ruckman's views were actually different than those expressed in the deleted material or that say, he often put in a good word for motherhood, apple pie, and puppies.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can certainly concede that Ruckman is indeed dead, and incapable of pressing legal claims for defamation. The BLP Noticeboard discussion is not entirely irrelevant, however, as more objections were being discussed there than just a living person defamation argument.  With regard to the second point regarding the "cherry picking", please understand that I haven't been arguing that you have been cherry picking sources, but rather cherry picking material (controversial article content), taken from primary sources (primarily Ruckman himself) and assembled together to deliberately portray him in the worst possible light.  Dead or alive, this is still a biography article.  If you were using high quality secondary sources in well rounded context, you would be on firm ground to assert that content belongs here due to it's coverage and comments by independent third parties.  However, in the disputed text at issue, you've used cherry picked material from primary sources designed to push a negative POV-oriented presentation of the subject.  I certainly do not doubt that Ruckman said or believed these things, I just take issue with what it is you're trying to do here.  As one of the other editors who posted on the noticeboard put it, "Peter Ruckman is a highly controversial person, and we should summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say about him. That neutral presentation allows reasonable people to draw their own conclusions. Any editor who compulsively uses poor quality sources in a coordinated, long term effort to make Ruckman look as bad as possible should cease and desist. (Cullen328).  I'm also not the only editor who reverted your recent re-insertion of the material for that reason; when Yngvadottir reverted on 25 April 2016, they made the same point in their edit summary regarding the requirement for much better sources.  Does that help clarify what I've been talking about?  --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that I've been cherry picking material to portray Ruckman in the worst possible light. If you believe so, then I challenge you to produce counter material that portrays Ruckman, if not in the "best possible light," in at least a rational frame of mind.  (To test this theory myself, I pulled a Ruckman book off the shelf that I'd never opened before, his commentary on the book of Genesis, and flipped to random pages in the middle (334-35).  Here's a Ruckman quotation from those pages, supposedly about Genesis 12:14-20: "Someone is on a 'sex kick.' (The Bible seems to get off to a flying start, placing before its auditors every inflammatory issue which concerns man: evolution, creationism, sex, eating, men from outer space, hypnotism, race-mixing, segregation, world unity, the Jew, the Catholic, the Negro, and absolutes all pop up in the first 12 chapters of a book that was supposed to have been written [according to the NCCC, Vatican State, and Edgar A. Guest] just to tell man how to live good lives, or to do 'God's will,' etc.)"
 * I be happy to cite nice peer-reviewed sources for the material you want to exclude. They don't exist. They don't exist for the remainder of the article either, which you seem perfectly happy to keep. If it's poor sourcing you're complaining about, you should logically take the whole article through AfD again.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Duly noted that you disagree with the allegation that you've chosen primary source material intended to portray him in the worst possible light. On challenging me to produce material that shows him in a good light or a rational frame of mind, I'm not really of the interest or inclination to even try; to me (my personal opinion), he's always struck me as having been the religious whack job type with loony beliefs.  It isn't really relevant, however, because there is no need for a Wikipedia biography to intentionally cast someone in the best possible light or the worst possible light using primary sources for POV-emphasis; both kinds of material should be left out.  And just so we're clear, if you feel this article should be nominated for deletion I'll have no heartburn or concerns with that.  So you actually have two options, pursuing an RfC to see if there are other editors who think the way you do and support including the controversial content you wish to add, or going the other direction and working to get the article deleted based on overall poor sourcing.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you and I agree that Ruckman has "loony beliefs," why won't you let my material stand? Three times now I've said that I'm not trying to portray him in the worst possible light, and you keep saying that I am. Quo warranto—on what evidence do you make that claim?--John Foxe (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With regard to the first question, it's because this is a Wikipedia biography and as others have pointed out, we shouldn't be using primary sources like that. With regard to the second, I can concede that possibly you are not (I can not read your mind), but for me that material is obvious prima facie negative content intended to paint him as a loon.  If I may ask, are you the original author of that content, or did someone else write it and you've been advocating keeping/re-inserting it over the years?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good question. I went back through the editing history and found I've been here since 2006, a pretty good run; but I'm a little hazy as to what I wrote when. Probably, while working on some serious scholarship, I ran into things I thought funny or interesting about Ruckman and then added them to the article when I had opportunity.
 * My argument for keeping the quotations is two-fold:
 * 1. Much of the article is primary-source based, and the mix in the quotations you don't like is about the same as the mix of primary-source material that compose the remainder of the article.
 * 2. You don't have to cherry pick quotations to make Ruckman look like a loon; just select any volume of his writings at random and start quoting. Why should we hush up opinions in which he (and many of his followers) took pride? This is who the guy was.--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On #1, the other material is garden mill variety for a biography, noncontroversial and straightforward. That said, if you see stuff you want to strip out because it's primary sourced, have a go at it.  On #2, his Wikipedia biography really shouldn't be a venue for expressing his random loony opinions either (I'd be persuaded differently if reputable third parties had taken note and made notable commentary).  This isn't about silencing him, it's about keeping his biography encyclopedic.  However, perhaps others might see it differently and agree with your take if you held an RfC and put the issue to the test.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about Third Opinion as a start?--John Foxe (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We could start there, but I must honestly admit that if only a single editor joins you in expressing support for including the material, I probably won't find that very convincing in light of the half dozen other editors from the community who have previously voiced opposition to including your text (unless of course the newcomer makes some brilliant argument I hadn't previously considered). An RfC would bring in multiple independent editors and has the best potential at recasting this in a new light if there is one.  That said, go ahead and try it (3rd Opinion) if you want to see where it leads.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Might it be possible to compromise our difference—for instance, excluding some but not all the material we disagree about?--John Foxe (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I read your response yesterday and made a point of carefully re-reading the nine sentences at issue, to ponder and try to decide if any of it could be included or reformed. After sleeping on it and re-visiting the page a couple times, I regret that I must write to say I came to the same conclusion I have before, that none of the individual sentences at issue could be reconciled with the concerns I've had since this all started.  In good faith, I do appreciate that you would propose trying to compromise.  I think at this point, an RfC really would be your best shot, because if a majority (even a slim majority) of editors come and genuinely express that they think the material should be in the article, I am more than willing to back off from this and let others decide what they think is best for this biography within the community guidelines and norms.  Whatever the outcome, forthright community participation would end with a result I could live with.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go that route. Would you be willing to set it up and frame the question?--John Foxe (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll create a new section below, with the question framed and your proposed text included with references. After it gets underway, you and I should let comments develop and refrain from adding our own until the process is well along, in order to encourage new community input without our influence.  Sound good?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that. We'll let it rip, and I'll plan to make no comments.--John Foxe (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I expected: virtually no notice. I'll let it be. Maybe there'll be a retrospective article or someone will write a dissertation about him.--John Foxe (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should the following text be included as content in this biography?

References:

Survey
Please indicate Support or Oppose and share your perspective:
 * Oppose. This paragraph relies entirely on primary sources. There is no indication that these are significant statements or beliefs. Generally we only include views that are discussed in reliable, secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Death of Ruckman's Son
P. S. Ruckman, Jr. has been mentioned in this article for years. It's my contention that he shouldn't be removed now simply because he killed his sons and committed suicide. Obviously, this tragic episode also speaks to a degree about the mental stability of his father and the atmosphere of the Ruckmans' home.--John Foxe (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it unwise to make add details about progeny to any biographical article unless the material is of genuine encyclopedia value to the subject of the article.  That it "has been here for 7 days" is not a big deal.  The Murder has not been here for years.
 * What we have is. I fear, one editor who believes this is of encyclopedic value about the father. It isn't. Collect (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pending consensus forming on inclusion/exclusion, it would probably be better to remove the content in the interim. Done.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally think that if the son was previously mentioned in the article, it should remain as it was prior to the events discussed here (the murder of family and suicide, etc). Inclusion of such information, especially after such a short period of time, in my opinion, is not of encyclopedic value for this individual. -- HunterM267  talk 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps restoration of the non-controversial portion is appropriate then, pending a future consensus on whether or not it's encyclopedic to add murders & suicides with regard to progeny. Implementation edit made here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally fully support the inclusion of the content added in the aforementioned edit, but would not add more details to it. -- HunterM267  talk 18:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * John, regarding this material that you added back to the article after it was removed many years ago during the BLP concern discussions, can you expand on your thinking with regard to relevance because of the son's suicide? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of that material (in a footnote only) seems to directly foreshadow the recent tragedy: "I have been in court custody cases where seven children's futures were held in the balance...children in split custody between two domiciles two hundred miles apart, and knock-down, drag-out arguments in the home sometimes running as long as three days." At the very least, in real life, if we discovered similar information about, say, the childhood of a respected and well educated neighbor who had committed a violent crime, the act might seem more understandable. Similarly, the same information might reflect on the character of the neighbor's father.--John Foxe (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Curiously, back in the early days of this article, a certain User:PSRuckman, tried to add genealogical information that was soon deleted as personal research.--John Foxe (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)