Talk:The Way of the Master

"Controversy"
I'll say here what I said with respect to a "controversy" mentioned in the seperate bio article about Ray: What controversy is there for real? Outside of here, I've not heard of anything online in blogs, the news, or "old school" media about a "controversy" regarding the interview segments or theology like we have heard about, for example, Pat Robertson's antics. I don't want to offend anyone, but from where I'm sitting, this section is merely a way for someone to vent about something they don't like, and so I've deleted it yet again. Anyone who does agree that there is a controversy, please feel free to respond. Bring your hard evidence and links to articles about this "controversy," and leave your POVs at the door.

Not only that, but their "interviews" is not ambushing. They have a book all about the behind the scenes aspects of the show, and they specifically say that nearly all people being interviewed have had the process and program described to them, and they sign a waiver agreeing to do the interview. I don't have the book or quote readily available at the moment (I'll try to post the quote later), but it definitely does not indicate an "ambush," but instead a relatively in-depth process.

There have only been two instances that I can think of (and I've seen all the episodes) of people being filmed without their knowledge, and in both instances, their faces have been blurred out. One was in their pilot episode when Comfort gives three guys money and leads into his presentation while Kirk watches and provides commentary from a distance. The other was in "When Things Go Wrong," where Comfort tries to give tracts to a group of people in Canada, but accidentally walks into the middle of a drug deal (no, really). --MessengerAtLWU 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Controversy is probably the wrong word to use, at least without evidence anyway, however having seen some episodes the basics are correct. If anyone disagrees with its phrasing feel free to edit it up to a NPOV, but blind reverting is not a good editing technique. I also added my own little paragraph, and played around with the position of the other paragraphs. I’ve never been any good at writing so let the editing begin! Gerard Foley 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerald, I've continued fixing as best I can. Even though I agree with Kirk and Ray, I feel we should let the "Criticisms" section stand, with heavy watching for NPOV.  Thanks y'all! --MessengerAtLWU 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Controversy section does need to be cleaned a little. I don't really know how to accomplish that since I'm new here, but hopefully one of you guys can do it properly. Citations would help if someone can find them aswell. =/ Keero 23:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keero, the main problem is that this IP address who is making/adding to the Criticism section is conducting original research (OR), and it seems he/she does not want to sit down and talk on the talk pages. The only article they've edited is this one and Fraggle Rock. /:-|  I'm in college and getting ready for exams next wee, so I don't have the time to sit back and work on it, but Homestarmy and I seem to be pretty much the only folks who regularly edit the articles on WOTM and Ray Comfort. --MessengerAtLWU 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Definition of "Discussion"
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n Function: noun 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate 2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

(The formal/informal distinction is not stated.)

The point being is that this area is for "Discussion." It is understandable and expected to delete unjustified remarks in the actual article, but to censor someone else’s opinion because it's something one doesn't like is to negate the possibility of any counter argument, cited or not. This does not apply necessarily to this 'controversy', of which I know nothing about. From where I am sitting, the above statement seems like a whitewash to any form of differing opinion, true or not.
 * Are you talking to me or to the person who posted that definition? I don't want to just brush any and all opinions aside. If there is a public controversy, I would like to know about it. --MessengerAtLWU 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC

In Question: "Evidence"
The above comment seems somewhat inconsistent. It demands "hard evidence" for claims made in response to this article, yet it fails to do exactly that. This should be self-evident.
 * Well if we're getting into semantics over this discussion, the WOTM people generally do both, they write gospel tracts and books :/. Im ordering a whole mess of them for my birthday :D. Homestarmy 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ingramac, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the claim that there's a controversy over WOTM, but instead the burden of proof is on the person who posted those statements, to cite articles and sites that prove their claim that there is in fact a controversy. P.S. Be sure to sign your name with --~ when you post on talk pages. :-) --MessengerAtLWU 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, is this about the controversy thing or the definition of "discussion"? Homestarmy 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was about the controversy. It'd be helpful if Ingramac got back here to discuss this with us. --MessengerAtLWU 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reality Break
Isn't that part of the show where they interview people on the street called "Reality Break"? Perhaps that paragraph can go under a level 3 heading. Gerard Foley 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it counts as a "filler" segment, so I'll mention it there. --MessengerAtLWU 13:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was specific this time
Ehrm, i'm going to take a shot at NPOVing all of that and seeing if I can think about ways the Way of the Master episodes could arguably not fall under the categories of all those fallacies so there's more than one side, but the problem is both sides here are compleatly original reaserch. (The links illustrate concepts that Wikipedia itself already covers, but don't appear to specifically address the show) Any ideas? We could just call their radio show and ask them point blank about all the accusations :D Homestarmy 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I get a minute this weekend, I'll see what I can do about NPOVing it. We could also ask an administrator to take a look at it. --MessengerAtLWU 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest issue is trying to get both sides, I don't think there's anything on any of the Way of the Master sites anywhere that responds to these exact objections. Of course, what the anon put in now might not even be a side since it seems to be OR.... Homestarmy 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes
Hey guys (though more often than not it's just me and Homestarmy). I've noticed that the article's getting pretty long, and as such I've got some ideas:
 * Splitting off the principle, TV show, radio show, and criticism into seperate articles, with only a paragraph for each in this article itself. As much as I hate to say it, we could (and perhaps should, in the interest of NPOV do a little digging and add some more sourced material to the criticism section.
 * I hope to soon unstubify the GNN article.
 * Eventually, this would lead to a whole series, complete with its own series box, which I'm currently working on User:MessengerAtLWU/WOTMTemplate.

Please let me know what y'all think! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, im my opinion, its not long until it starts complaining about page length when you start editing the page :). The thing about splits, is that the content your splitting off ordinarily needs enough material to make a non-stub in it's own right or it probably isn't worth it, like the critism section here, since somebody nuked it for us, there's only like 3 lines :/. Verifiable lines in a way, but still just 3 lines heh. I seem to remember something around the Dan Barker debate where Todd was talking about Atheist bloggers going on about how his speech was "evil", (alas, the irony) but blogs aren't ordinarily good sources for wikipedia unless the article is about blogs, and i've never heard of any other critism besides that. The evolution episode is probably the easiest thing you could find controversy for over, because i've been around the block a few times on Talk:Evolution, and the evolution episode, sadly, wasn't quite correct about a few things. But unless we find some outside (Non-wikipedia) source for critism of the episode, there isn't much to do there that isn't just OR. I like your plan though, its just im not sure if enough content is here quite yet for more articles :/. And we still need references for this article, like in a real references section, I could start referencing the study guide or the Evidence Bible if need be because I keep them in my backpack every day..... Homestarmy 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, trust me. A quick Google search on WOTM, HBKS, Ray, Kirk, etc., will find a lot, albeit usually deep down.  People twisting the parachute analogy and saying that The Ten Commandments aren't really what are meant in Psalm 19:7, folks who say that because Ray believes in eternal security he's advocating a license to sin, blogs that decry his "porn star mustache," you get the point.  Christianbook.com did an interview of Ray a while back that went through some rather probing questions.  I'll have to do a little digging, I think some of 'em are in my bookmarks.
 * As to the rest, I'm certain it can be made into full articles, esp. the TV show, and perhaps even the training courses. Adding something like a list of segments to the radio show portion would definitely make it long enough.
 * BTW, have you considered joining GNN or SOBE? All your work and witnessing here is excellent.  Just curious. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you can dig up the critisisms that aren't compleatly bloggy or personal-website-esque, that might be enough for a separate article I suppose. If we need help, I could always call on the group of christian cabal members friends i've met so far on Wikipedia, they might be willing to lend a hand, though we are still working a good deal on Jesus and many other assorted articles. (It's coming together quite nicely, I think the only thing we really need now is more on how the early romans and jews changed how Jesus's teachings were seen as and whatnot.) And i'd join the GNN but the only leader I saw for Georgia was in Atlanta and im many miles north of there :(. It's somewhat ironic, because up north in the mountains there's churches everywhere and evangelistic signages, but im in between the mountains and Atlanta and am too far away :(. Homestarmy 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, you don't need to be near a leader. Plus, there's leaders now in Athens, Augusta, and Lexington (though only the Athens one is on the main map right now. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, maybe not
Somebody seems to of hacked that website as I gather from the satirical content about the "Devil's beatitudes", and the www.wotmradio.com site seems either down or the hackers disabled it I supposed. I think that deserves an honorable mention. Homestarmy 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, thinking about it, that list probably IS something that one would hope we would hate, maybe nothing bad happened :/. Homestarmy 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's up now, so that's good. :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability
--(below moved from my talk page Clinkophonist 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))--

Hey, just curious why all the boxes were put on those pages. I would be interested in hearing your reasons why on the appropriate talk pages. Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious. The importance template is there because they do not assert their importance, i.e. why they should have an article. They should be merged because they do not appear to be important in their own right, i.e. not important enough to have their own articles. I can see why a criminal investigation involving millions of pounds and forgery would be important, but I don't see why the suspected criminal's next door neighbour's cat deserves its own article. Clinkophonist 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would've hoped you would talk about it with myself and Homestarmy, who have honestly done 80%+ of the work on those articles. I appreciate being bold (it's why I started the initial WOTM article before I even had a username!), but I felt that you coming along as a "lone gunmen" (running in, adding those tags, and leaving without discussion) was a bit unusual.  I saw "It has been suggested that XYZ be merged into this article or section," and thought, "Where?  When?  No one's said anything about it, and there were no serious objections when I split the article up six weeks ago.  All I see is another editor sticking those boxes onto the pages!"  There's a reason those tags tell us to discuss these things. ;-)
 * Initally I split 'em up because with fifty gazillion different ministry branches/programs, the WOTM article was getting messy, esp. the contents box. I definitely feel that keeping LW and WOTM split is the right choice, as they are seperate "brand names" and pretty much all of Kirk's content (save a few things archived from '02 and '03) is focused on WOTM-side.
 * On a similar note, why did you put the POV tag on Ray Comfort? (I've always felt that the tag was a bit redundant; if it's POV, be bold and un-POV it! :-P)  MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "it has been suggested that XYZ be merged...." refers to the fact that someone has added the tag. That is the act of suggestion - the adding of the tag. It's not unusual to leave tags - many people do it - its only when the tag is disputed that discussion appears on the talk page. The tags do not tell people to discuss things. They ask people who dispute the tags to start discussion rather than enter into an edit war by removing the tags. The tags do not require undisputed tags to be discussed. Clinkophonist 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will maybe get round to revisiting Ray Comfort and un-POVing it if I get time, but the tag exists to warn other people. If no-one does anything to the article within 2 weeks then I won't object if you remove the tag. Clinkophonist 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also curious why you thought it was POV. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because its extremely selective about what it includes about him. There is zero criticism of him; this is unlikely for notable figures in the Creation/Evolution issue, so I am forced to conclude that either he isn't notable (and therefore the article should be deleted) or that the article is POV. Clinkophonist 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of that is in the WOTM article, although a link would be appropriate. Some equity has recently been introduced when someone (I forget who) posted Comfort's conceding a major point in his argument for creationism.  Maher has not responded (to my knowledge) to his request for a debate, and his debate with Ron Barrier in 2001 has been documented on the article as well (though his response to Comfort is in order).  While it may not be enough, it is a start. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Straw men are not enough to justify removing the POV tag. Clinkophonist 13:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It took me a bit to find this conversation, i've been away a couple days, can we please take this to the article talk pages? :/ Homestarmy 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--(above moved from my talk page Clinkophonist 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))--


 * Ok then, Messenger, you said there on the to-do list that you have a tape of the nightline interview and saw some criticisms there, would it be enough to make a good paragraph or two? Homestarmy 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably, yeah. I'll have to get that up there. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well once we do that, i'd say its just a matter of finding references for all those other split articles, especially maybe a couple references that aren't all from the ministry website heh. Homestarmy 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a little bit; the segment was so short, I didn't add too much to it. You wanna try to wikify the evolution bit?  Just trying to skim it, it looks pretty messy. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing about that entire spiel is that its almost compleatly OR, even if I wikifyed it, it would probably just get deleted later on :/. Homestarmy 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticm section WAY to long
What's up with the Criticsm section being twice as long as the main content? It seems way way out of proportion and is not what you see in bound enyclopedias. How about reducing the criticism to the major bullets or linking to other pages that discuss a competing philosophy.


 * The problem is it has no sources for any of it and as far as I can tell was just one anonymous editor putting in their own, personal criticisms, so im not entirely certain what can be done for it :/. Homestarmy 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "anonymous" editor included more material than was necessary in the criticism section, so I left the basic information, and purged the rest. The basic info being what specific criticisms have been made, definitions of some of the terms, and an example for each one. The rest I believe to be superfluous.Jlujan69 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the criticism section, I changed "circumnavigating the conscience" to "circumventing the intellect". What Comfort and Cameron have said several times in their show is that the Way of the Master is a way to appeal to the conscience directly by "doing an end run around the intellect".Jlujan69 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable for the criticism section to be twice as long as the remainder of the content, iff this is how things are in the real world - if the criticism is far more notable, in the real world, than the positive features (i.e. if WOTM is notable for being criticised). Clinkophonist 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just it, as far as I know, most of this section is nothing more than a single anon's critique of all this, hardly notable :/. Homestarmy 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

added information in criticism section
In that section, I stated what could be the source of his summary of evolution. It was a magazine I read years ago and another article I read recently confirmed that this theory was still being explored. It speculates that in the beginning there really was a state of nothingness. Of course, the article went on to say what scientists mean by "nothingness". I'll try to find the link and post it if possible.Jlujan69 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested additions
This ministry has spawned a huge underground "one to one" and "open air" witnessing movement. All over the world, people are passing out living waters tracts, starting conversations with strangers and standing up in public doing open air preaching. I think a description of these two activities, and their distinctions would be appropriate. Also a mention of some of the more prolific examples of street preachers and witnessers inspired by this ministy (myself not the least of them). I have run into people in real life and in the blogosphere all over who are doing this very thing. -Dru Morgan http://theheavenlyhost.blogspot.com

Also, Francis Chan, of http://www.cornerstonesimi.com has produced a film http://www.juststopandthink.com "Just Stop and Think" that presents this same gospel presentation in a unique way. If Francis and this film don't deserve their own wikipage, then at the very least, they should be referenced here. -Dru Morgan

Explicit mention of WDJD in second Left Behind movie
When I watched Left Behind II: Tribulation Force, I did so for the purpose of laughing my ass off with a couple of friends. And, sure enough, I wasn't disappointed, when Cameron (excuse me, I mean Cameron's "charakter") actually starts confronting another character with his painfully repetitive "Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?" routine. That seemed to me to be a remarkable (albeit hilarious) creak of the charakter, and I believe that it deserves some mention here. After all, the direct inclusion in a (somewhat) major filme gives the principle somewhat more of a fame. Maybe somebody who isn't as biased as me will want to write that in somewhere. That's it, I'll leave now. Tihi. — Mütze 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous by their standards nobody would get into heaven, you could never "want" or even "need" something. 70.162.43.130 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we could cite it at the bottom and add in a line about it I suppose. But, to 70.162.43.130, the entire point is that nobody can get to heaven alone because the standard is too high and that that's why everyone needs Jesus. It would be pretty silly to expect people to want to be saved if nobody really needed to be saved, Jesus certainly wouldn't of needed to die for us then, and in fact, if humans had the ability to be saved by successfully adhering to perfect standards, Jesus wouldn't even technically of needed to exist. Homestarmy 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah technically he didnt exist .. so well done on that one (I mean the biblical character - the son of god etc) 123.255.23.61 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument from design
The following paragraph: "Cameron and Comfort use what some describe as flawed or misleading arguments to prove the existence of God, or their discussions with the general public may be more colloquial than strictly scientific ... some say that this does not technically qualify as actual proof of a painter or a builder, following David Hume, who pointed out that one only knows from experience that paintings have painters and buildings have builders, but not that universes have creators." reads as original research/criticism by the author. At least one citation should be given here, especially if the encyclopedist is audacious enough to point back to Hume, or refer to the hosts as "misleading" per WP:LIVING. I'm going to condense it. Leon 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where Are The Criticisms?
From what I can see, the criticisms section is nearly devoid of actual criticisms. Bantosh 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Former Follier 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraphs aren't criticism so much as disagreement over an abstract theological topic.
 * Martin Bashir's blurbs about "deliberately confrontational" and "unafraid to offend other faiths" are only critisims if you take them as such.
 * "Why should anyone believe an itinerant evangelist without any qualifications, and a former child actor without any qualifications?" seems to be posing a question for them to rebut rather than actually making an accusation.
 * I have actually created a critical blog of WOTM which can be found at http://wotmwatchdog.blogspot.com. I nominate it to be entered in the criticism section.
 * Blogs are not Reliable sources, and the vast majority don't meet notability guidelines anyway. Homestarmy 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no surprise you would say that considering you're a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. Trying to protect readers from a little criticism? That's hardly unbiased and balanced. Former Follier 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, it's hardly a surprise i'd oppose this blog, but don't think WP:RS is only a policy for fundamentalist Christian Wikipedians. The same goes for WP:N, which applies here just as well. Neither policy has anything to do with bias or balance of course, but that hardly matters, Wikipedia's goals don't begin and end with WP:NPOV, as WP:5P demonstrates. I mean, if all an article had to be was unbiased and balanced, it could be total lies from start to finish and still be called acceptable, and that doesn't just go for controversial topics either. Homestarmy 02:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really that scared of a little opposition? http://www.wotmwatchdog.org
 * You really think that Christians are afraid of criticism from your little website? It has been around for thousands of years and will continue to be despite your guise as a watchdog group, most critics are what are called "angry athiests". IE- "Welcome to WOTM Watchdog! We are an international group of concerned freethinkers who are dedicated to exposing the hypocrisies, logical fallacies, and outright lies employed by "Way of the Master" and its affiliated ministries." A true watchdog group doesn't have an pre-fabricated agenda. Your POINT OF VIEW is not welcome in an encyclopedia. - Sincerely, crazy delusional Christian who believes in an "imaginary" God Strunke 01:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WOTM watchdog continued
I think it would be far better to discuss this on just one talk page, rather than having the discussion take the form of an edit war. As can be seen from the above section, the site in question was apparently created by User:Former Follier as a blog. I don't know if its still a blog now, it sure looks that way when I look at it, but if it isn't a blog, why is it hosted on blogspot, and why do its posters use pseudonyms? If they were all notable people, you'd think they could bother to use their real names. Homestarmy 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So now that there has been a removal of a reference to a site as an external link (it isn't referenced in the articles, themselves, as a source), and we acknowledge that one other participant bent on removal of the link may be in error in declaring it a blog, now we want it removed because it's not "notable."  By what criteria do we decide notability in an off-Wiki site that is relatively new, and is critical of the article subject, especially when those who are insisting on its exclusion are clearly not acting from a neutral point of view?  Well, we evaluate the comments and claims made on the site and see if there's any validity or truth to them.  While giving due credence to WP:AGF, we try to determine if those who want the link included are acting against WP:POV, or if that's actually the position taken by those insisting on removal.  When it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to observe that those in philosophical alignment with the subjects of certain articles tend to act to advocate that subject.  I wouldn't think that Scientologists, for example, should be editing articles about Scientology.  They simply can't be neutral about it; and tend to want to leave out information that they don't happen to like.  One might be tempted to respond, "well, you're an atheist," but atheists are not only fully capable of responding to these things dispassionately, but often do so.  I give no more thought to Christianity than I do to Paramecium.  It exists, and all reasonable information about it should be included - "good" or "bad."  I don't see the "watch group" as "good" or "bad," but simply an aspect of a controversial group.  I didn't know that it was created by a user on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's relevant so much as what is being said on the site and whether or not what is being said is true, is valid criticism, or is neither of those things.  I don't know that it matters so much that the participants are anonymous - it's pretty clearly a critical site and many of those tend to have anonymous contributors or those using pseudonyms.  I'm going to guess that "Homestarmy" is a pseudonym - in fact, most of the editors at Wikipedia are completely unknown even within Wikipedia.  That doesn't seem to make any difference at Wikipedia - what matters is the validity of the information provided.  Unless there is good cause to exclude the site, which was only added as an external reference list (which is precisely where it belongs, contrary to what was claimed), it should be restored.  Qualifying under that rubric would be if the site included inaccurate or untrue information or claims.  Demonstrate that and I'll happily accept that it shouldn't be included.  There's been no edit war except by those with a clear vested interest in not maintaining a neutral POV and those not wanting to see WOTM criticized.  For example:  SSObregon88 is clearly a single-purpose account, a very young man thinks quite highly of the WOTM, and won't allow criticism, then wants to lecture others about what is "encyclopidic."  Sorry.  It won't wash.  One of the reasons that Wikipedia has such a serious credibility problem is precisely because such things are rampant here.  Some of us are working to remedy that.  However, unlike many on Wikipedia, I have a neutral point of view on the matter and I won't get into long arguments about such things.  The more examples that I can provide or discover in which clearly POV-pushing editors get their way simply because they have more "staying power" (or less of a life, in the case of a couple of people that I have encountered. none of whom I am referring to here) than those who simply want to improve the encyclopedia without getting into incessant arguments with immature participants, the less credibility Wikipedia will have, and it will continue to deteriorate - Nascentatheist 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the last revert I made, your first summary of adding it in seemed to imply that the link was being used as a "reference", and generally, I take that to mean a reference for the article, not a reference to itself. But, if I was wrong, notability is still something that needs some discussion here. As to SSO's reverting of the link based on the idea of it being a blog, i'm personally not sure of that, I think its pretty likely, but I prefer finding the least controversial solution to a dilema as possible, which is why I chose a reason to remove mention of WOTM watchdog for a reason not related to blog status or not. SSO may be right or wrong, I might be right or wrong, but we're here now, so we might as well discuss everything about this issue. (As I presume your speech already begins doing) I'm not sure if you made a typo about notability, (Should that "in" be an "on" concerning on-site criteria?) but the criteria for external link notability is inside the overall External Links guideline. I believe the relevant parts for this situation are in the "Links to be avoided" section, numbers 2 and 11, and on the biographies, number 14. Depending on what exactly the WOTM watchdog site is, number 10 might also apply. NPOV is not the only policy/guideline that should be considered whenever a dispute over external links arises. In this case, the question of what the WOTM watchdog site actually is becomes very important; if it's a blog, then it isn't an appropriate link, and if its a discussion site for its users to share their point of view, it also isn't an appropriate link. Both of those criteria probably stem from WP:N and/or reliable references guidelines, since blogs and forums are rarely notable or reliable, and would thusly be very undesirable for usage in something that should be an encyclopedia article.
 * Frankly, it seems to me like there's no need to examine the factual accuracy of the material on WOTM watchdog, the site appears to be either a blog or some sort of location where various users discuss what they see as failings of WOTM. What exactly do you think the WOTM watchdog site is? Being hosted on blogspot makes me immedietly think its a blog, though I can certainly see how it could be used for a different purpose. However, since one of the posters on this site has the same username as the Wikipedia editor above who started the site as a blog, it does seem like a strong case could be made that this site is, indeed, a blog. Homestarmy 01:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, if there is no documented criticism....
Maybe the criticism section should be removed. While many of Kirk and Ray's ideas certainly do seem like various groups would criticize them if they had the inkling to do it, with no references, that makes me wonder if any notable (I.E. no blogspot.com entries) people and/or groups have actually decided to criticize them on the things mentioned. Homestarmy 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This topic seems to have spawned a vast array of unencyclopaedic (advertising blurb, fansite-like trivia and/or embedded lists) and poorly cited (almost all citations are to websites associated with this ministry) articles. I am therefore suggesting that they all be merged here, compressed down to what is reliably sourced and encyclopaedic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only article that I think should be merged or even deleted is the article about "The Way of the Master Training Courses". All the other articles that have been proposed to be merged into this one should be instead improved upon and expanded to meet the so-called "notibility" requirements. SSobregon88 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "so-called" about the notability requirements -- they are wikipedia policy. As far as I can see none of the topics of these satellite articles "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- so none of them have a presumption of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these articles were created quite some time ago, in the hopes that they would incur enough content for there to be enough material for a Way of the Master series of articles. I wasn't so sure of it myself, but I gotta say, at the moment, most of the articles are not very high in quality. If the material in each was used in this article, perhaps it might be more comphrehensive, and then at least there would be one relatively good quality article. However, the Great News Network is not an official part of The Way of the Master, but of course, that discussion is on the GNN talk page. Homestarmy 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GNN is an offshoot of this movement, and the only thing it is even purported to be notable for is for the confiscation of a WOTM product from them. So, lacking a better home, or somebody willing to go to the effort of an AfD, here would appear to be the best option. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-merger
Having merged these articles, and removed the most blatantly unencyclopaedic bits while doing so, I now notice that the resultant article is still a mess. Very little is cited, and what is cited is almost always cited to WOTM itself (and its satellites). The tone is also more that of a fansite than an objective article -- but its difficult to improve this given the lack of objective sources. There's therefore a good chance that large amounts of the article (and possibly whole sections) will end up disappearing as the lack of appropriate tone or reliable third party citations makes them not worth saving. HrafnTalkStalk 15:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tone improvements
This article lacks encyclopediac tone. I think the main problem is it is written for a American style evangelical Christian audience, rather than the general audience Wikipedia requires. Case is point is all time spent outlining the Biblical support. Not all Christian churches place this sort of emphasis on Biblical support for theological positions. I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to get 3rd party descriptions of the organisation. As it is it sounds like most of the article was written by people within the organisation/movement/church or whatever you want to call it. Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but good luck finding any -- even if a few objective descriptions do exist, they will tend to be vastly outnumbered by the number from within the evangelical movement (or at least that's been my experience to date), and so be difficult to track down. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards
The claimed awards for WOTM seem to be contradicted by the NRB 2006 Media Award Winners, which makes no mention of them. I would suggest that this statement in the lead be removed until a more reliable source can be found for it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source says they won it in 2005. Would you object to the text stating this (rather than 2004-2006), or do you consider the source dubious. I am reluctant to remove the text wholesale, because it contains one of the few cites that this article has! Ashmoo (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the sources cited makes the claim for 2006:, which is directly contradicted by the NRB page. The cites are only to one of WOTM/LW own websites, so not exactly high quality. HrafnTalkStalk 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It website says they won the 2006 award two years running! They must have had a time machine. I think the contradiction may have something to do with 'TV Commitee awards' and 'Media Awards'. But it's not up to you and I to work out what the original editor meant. Chop it and let them explain, if they ever come back. Ashmoo (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

www.ttwministries.com
Tried to find replacements for the citations to www.ttwministries.com (now defunct, and not waybackable) -- the closest I could come up with is this -- which claims to be "Author: Unknown", in spite of the fact that the site has a category for "Todd Friel". Given that it's a blog & doesn't explicitly credit Friel as its author, I don't think it's sufficiently reliable. HrafnTalkStalk 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Another merger proposal
I am now also proposing the merger into this article of these two articles: HrafnTalkStalk 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Way of the Master (television show): the only references cited to this list-ridden article are for the awards I discussed above. I am proposing retaining the list of episodes.
 * The Way of the Master Radio Show: completed uncited & trivia-ridden. I'm not proposing retaining any of it.


 * I agree. As it stands now, those 2 articles are barely notable and are 99% trivia. Ashmoo 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NPoV - Words
I dispute the neutrality of the word "ministry" to describe an organization or movement. Better more neutral words exist. Furthermore this very talk page talks of a large "Controversy" section while there is no longer any distinct listing of opposing opinion on a highly flammable set of opinions. At the very least there should be a summary of leading theologians that dis/agree. Currently the tone is extremely supportive of the group while it is clear there is another side of the story from some of the passing comments. --Lord Matt (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Ministry" is the WOTM's self-description of their organisation. I have seen no hard numbers, but it gives every impression of being too small to be considered a "movement". There hasn't been a 'controversy' section in two years as far as I can tell, and the section that existed was entirely unsourced, so was legitimately removed per WP:V. If you can find WP:V & WP:RS information on a controversy, you are welcome to add it. I cannot imagine a serious theologian bothering with such a lowbrow outfit as these guys, but if you can find some, then by all means add them. The tone is "supportive" because nobody other than the organisation itself and its supporters seem to bother with it -- which is why its been flagged for notability. I don't really mind the extra NPOV tag, but given the article's other problems (as per existing tags) it seems a tad superfluous. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Million Dollar Bill Seizure & notability of WotM
I would point out that the three citations for this have coverage of WotM are as follows: None of these counts as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "He said his clients didn't design or print the tracts but purchased them from a Southern California ministry. Living Waters Ministry sells the million-dollar bill tracts – 100 for $5."
 * 2) No mention of WotM.
 * 3) A video from 'Great News Network' that is only a WP:RS for their own views, and is not independent of the subject (I therefore didn't bother downloading & transcribing it to see if it mentions WotM).

ABC News and WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
I plan on adding some information gathered from the various news stories ABC News has indirectly done on Way of the Master (here, here, and here) as well as anything else I can dig up to help establish WP:Notability. I believe these to be WP:RS, although I could probably use some guidance regarding the fact that these might have too much focus on Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort rather than the organization itself. 10outof10die (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indirect coverage is generally not "significant coverage" (per WP:NOTE, covered in WP:ORG as "depth of coverage"). These stories appear to mention WotM only in passing, in discussing Cameron, Comfort (who already have their own articles) and other topics unrelated to WotM. They did not appear to have anything to say about the organisation, other than that it exists and that Cameron & Comfort are associated with it (which the article already establishes). HrafnTalkStalk 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling that was the case as well. I will focus more on those articles then. Thanks. 10outof10die (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some third party sources that might help establish notability: Ἀλήθεια (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that most of these sources either are not reliable (Worldnet Daily & The Conservative Voice) or do not give more than 'bare mention' of this ministry. Only three sources appear to be potentially usable:    This is hardly a great deal of material, and doesn't appear to be anything that isn't already in the article, but you are welcome to work it into the article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
An editor who, as a result of previous unproductive threads, I had requested stay off my user-talk, raised the topic of this article there. I am taking the liberty of discussing it here instead (this is after all the sole appropriate forum for any direct discussion of this article). My initial thoughts immediately ran to (newly introduced) sources (which should not surprise anybody with any familiarity with me): I will be replacing both with fact-tags.
 * WorldNet Daily: notorious for gross inaccuracies & extreme partisanship. Serves only to keep the true-believers revved up and to provide a laughingstock for liberal blogs. Prima facie unreliable.
 * pr-usa.net: press release aggregator -- again prima facie unreliable, except perhaps, and with care, as a primary source for the opinions of those making the press release.
 * American Daily/New Media Alliance: the former is merely an aggregator of email-submitted content, the latter merely a loose alliance of self-proclaimed journalists. Its reliability is, to say the least, questionable. I will therefore be tagging it, and will submit it to WP:RS/N. [Addendum: it also fails to verify the "syndicated two-hour, daily" part of the sentence. HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ]

I am however glad to see the flimsy 'associates' list gone. HrafnTalkStalk 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1: You didn't say to "stay off my user-talk," you said "any further posts you make here may (and most probably will) be reverted or deleted without comment." The two aren't the same. However, unless things change, I will not be posting anything on your user talk, unless for a specific situation, by your request.
 * 2: About the list, yes, it was very unencyclopedic and not sourced. That is why I removed it.  TheAE   talk / sign  05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE #1: such hair-splitting (and related misinterpretative behaviour) is exactly what rendered you unwelcome there AE. I doubt if any reasonable reader would infer from that statement anything other than that I considered you to be unwelcome. HrafnTalkStalk 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I am really wanting to remove the POV-check from the article. I read it all through, and it all seems neutral. I'll fix anything mentioned, but I do want to remove the tag. Thank you.  TheAE  talk / sign  05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PR puffery is not a reliable source
This is not even close to being WP:RS. If AE wants to make an issue out of this, we can take it to WP:RS/N. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WoTM/LWP put out this press release.
 * A small and obscure UK religious magazine (for which there is no reason to assume any particular reliability) makes a brief summary of it for their website.
 * Yes, the second is a published, (in my opinion) reliable source that should be discussed. The first one I am not very sure about, as the "author" is an affiliate of WOTM.  TheAE  talk / sign  05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * AE: your unsubstantiated "opinion" has no value whatsoever. In what way does Inspire meet WP:RS? Mere "publication" by an obscure magazine, that is only sold via direct subscription to the publisher, is not a measure of reliability, especially when there is no indication that this publication is on anything other than their website. This is particularly egregious when you reference the grandious claim that "The 'Million Dollar Bill' tract has become a well-known tract" to this flimsy source. You can either remove this material yourself, or I'm taking it to WP:RS/N (where it doesn't stand a WP:SNOW-ball's chance in hell). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't understand half of the words you used (which may be a good thing). Secondly, by "in my opinion," I meant that I believe it to be reliable (and you disagree, so outside opinion is needed), and it isn't an issue of being published. You may add it to WP:RS/N, and let other users comment. I may be wrong as to its reliability, but I think it would be even more wrong not to discuss this first (before reverting, Hrafn).  TheAE  talk / sign  06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * AE: what you (or I) "believe" matters no more than what your unsubstantiated opinion is. It is policy that matters. And WP:RS gives no indication that Inspire should be considered a reliable source. You introduced blatantly unreliably-sourced material. I reverted. That is normal practice. You re-added it without first discussing it on talk, which is arguably WP:EDITWARing. You are wrong on reliability, you are wrong on wiki-etiquette. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could just say, "It doesn't matter that you think, policy says it isn't reliable" to every disputable source, there would be no reason for WP:RS/N. Some sources/websites need discussion, like Inspire, which it why the noticeboard exists. I double-checked WP:RS, and I didn't see it say, "Inspire isn't a reliable source", so we must be looking at different pages. About WP:EDITWARing, I didn't edit war, at all. You did a full revert, and I did not just warringly undo your revert. I looked at the material again, reconsidered one of the sources, and added only the other one in the article. I didn't war. You said, "You are wrong on reliability, you are wrong on wiki-etiquette." On reliability, I am still learning, I admit, as every user should be. But on wiki-etiquette, I fully disagree. Look through my talk page, I'm not the editor who constantly is accused of being incivil, and then removes it.  TheAE  talk / sign  19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AE, let's get a few facts straight:
 * 1) "You re-added it without first discussing it on talk, which is arguably WP:EDITWARing" = "you are wrong on wiki-etiquette". Both your sources were unambiguously unreliable, so a "full revert" was perfectly justified, and re-adding this unreliably sourced and inaccurate puffery without discussing it on talk first is edit-warring. That I removed from my talkpage the spurious complaints of a self-righteous edit-warrer-against-WP:CONSENSUS does not change this fact.
 * 2) WP:RS:
 * 3) *"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does Inspire have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- no. They incorrectly identified tracts "given away" as tracts "sold".
 * 4) *That RSes include "Academic and peer-reviewed publications", "material from reputable mainstream publications", "Material from mainstream news organizations" -- none of which covers Inspire
 * 5) *"How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." As far as I know, no "accepted, high-quality reliable sources" have even bothered to acknowledge Inspire's existence, let alone "use" it for information.
 * 6) *Nor does Inspire in any way resemble the examples given in WP:Reliable source examples.
 * In summary, WP:RS gives no reason whatsoever to suggest that Inspire may be a RS. As it is merely an inaccurate précis of the original PR, it is even less reliable than that.
 * The purpose for WP:RS/N is for discussion of sources whose reliability is ambiguous. Inspire is unambiguously unreliable (per analysis of WP:RS above)
 * 1) You have still offered no basis whatsoever (NONE, ZILCH, NADA) within WP:RS for your claim that Inspire is a reliable source.

AE: you have a long history with me of making claims with no apparent basis in fact or policy. I am heartily sick of it. Facts matter, policy matters -- opinions without visible basis in either are just so much verbal flatulence -- and will be valued as such. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, I haven't once said "x-policy says it is reliable." I only said that it is a published magazine that may be reliable, and therefore should be discussed at WP:RS/N. that is all. I cannot believe that you reverted me again without a single comment from WP:RS/N, right after you scolded me for doing it? I will not undo it, as I am bound by policy not to.  TheAE  talk / sign  03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AE: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing about this source that indicates that it even "may be reliable". It lacks any perceivable substance or editorial oversight.
 * 2) Even were it true that it "may be reliable", you should not have included it until you had some degree of certainty that it is reliable, and most certainly should not have reverted to re-include it until you had some sort of substantive case with a basis in policy (i.e. WP:RS).
 * 3) I reverted because (i) I had evidence that the information was not only unreliable, but demonstrably inaccurate and (ii) because you had made no defence whatsoever of the source's reliability. You have been given time to address both issues. If you choose not to do so, you should not expect me to wait for validation from WP:RS/N on this unambiguous issue.

Result missing

 * claiming that they could prove the existence of God scientifically without using the Bible

The most important thing a neutral reader like me would like to know is: did they? That of course means: who was the perceived winner of the argument? --82.83.49.84 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Video sources
I've added an Archive.org link to the Google Video source, but it's of very limited value because there's no watchable video there. The ABC website claims to have video and a transcript, but neither works for me. There seem to be various related videos on YouTube (see and ), but there doesn't seem to be a direct replacement and it isn't clear to me which is most suitable. Please update the sources if you can make sense of them. Tim Ivorson 2020-09-04