Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Potter's House Christian Fellowship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Citations needed

As you can see, the page contains many 'citation needed' warnings. I placed them there several months ago (I believe). I will go over them one more time and then delete them unless they are substantiated (as per Wikipedias verifiability policy i.e. 'Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed'.)

Current church statistics

Please cite the source of these statistics. 'Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' The source should be a credible third party, not simply the CFM or an adherents website. If this cannot be done, then it will have be changed from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion, and the source of the opinion cited. If neither can be found, the section should be deleted.

Church activity

"While the Potter's House welcomes those from other churches, it does not actively participate in proselytising, but rather in conversion of non-believers." Can the author of this statement please clarify it? What does 'non-believer' mean? It could mean atheist, non-Christian, non-Protestant, non-Pentacostal or even non-Potters House members. And please cite a source for this particular policy. As above, if it can't be verified as it stands, it could be changed into an opinion and a source of the opinion cited. If neither can be done, it should be deleted.

Church history

As above. Please back up these claims with some kind of reference. Is there a book where these claims are made? I'm sure they weren't just made up, so where did they come from?

Church conferences

As above. These figures were acquired somewhere. Where are they from?

Clearly, the article has relied upon a lot of unverified material. Unfortunately the article will be a lot shorter if these claims cannont be backed up with "credible, third-party" sources.

--GuyIncognito 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

'Criticism of the church' section

This part seems to be the most edited and recent additions are from a pro-Potters House POV. Links have been deleted, and the alternative viewpoint either removed or 'rebutted'.

The link to the CRI article has been removed. I am adding it again. I'm also altering the text to replace the previous amendment which said "The Christian Research Institute gives a more measured criticism of the organization but has Ross as a main reference." Firstly, the CRI article does not reference Rick Ross as all. Secondly, it is the most professional and measured critique of the Potters House that can be found, and by a respected organisation. It looks really bad for pro-Potters House editors to remove it or attempt to 'spin' it in a negative way. For 218.214.37.212 I particularly recommend re-reading the Wikipedia NPOV policy which includes the statement: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted."

For 218.214.37.212 and Jlujan69: The criticisms section originally was four lines representing the claims of the 'critics' and four lines representing the views or the 'defenders' of the Potters House. After your collective editing, it now has three lines for the critics, and nine lines defending the Potters House. The point of this section is to fairly present all conflicting points of view. These additions have turned the section into a mini-debate, with additions that seem to have the single purpose of 'rebutting' the critics claims. Again, reference to the NPOV policy is instructive: 'Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." At present, that is not occurring. If we present all competing views fairly, readers are then equipped to decide for themselves which side to believe. Deleting the views of those opposed to the Potters House, simply because they are considered 'biased', prevents readers from doing that.

--GuyIncognito 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

You stated:

Firstly, the CRI article does not reference Rick Ross as all. This is a half truth, please re read it.

But the article itself says: NEGATIVE REPORTS BY EX-MEMBERS AND OTHERS -- Since our preliminary report of March 3, 1988, new developments have occurred which should be included in this report. In September of this year, the "Geraldo Television Show" did a segment which included an expose' of the Potter's House in which '"exit-counselor" 'Rick Ross'' alleged that the Potter's House was cultic and dangerous. Others, many ex-members, allege that the leadership exercises strong control over its members (a form of the shepherding doctrine); that leaving the church would result in the judgment of God; that members are ostracized from their families; that tithing is essential to be in proper or right relationship with God and strongly enforced by the leadership; that women attending the Potter's House are subjugated; and that ex-members are shunned or hated and considered lost until they come back to the Potter's House. While many of these allegations came from ex-members in the Prescott area, some have come from other parts of the country which indicates that there may be some truth to the allegations at least with some Potter's Houses.

The information originated from Ross, this is clear!

I think that the CRI article is fine and I am not sure if it was deleted by accident. At least they are credible! I would prefer that over the link to escape from the fellowship, which we have discussed in depth before that this person has a website pretending to be me saying I am a homo etc...(are we going through this again?)

I replaced the former 'Criticism of the church' section until you revise your views about Rick Ross and the CRI article and understand that (removed) has a web site that pretends to be me saying all sorts of untrue things, thus proving he is not credible (are we going through this again?).

I have added the link to a new page www.waymanmitchell.com which has links to books written by Mitchell and others about the Potter's House which would help also with the citations.

Also I can't understand why those "neutral" people at Rick Ross' Wikipedia article won't allow 2 links to be placed on the criticism links, but they are always deleted. I think if you are going to put links to people with no credibility who are proven to be liars, deceivers, etc, who run a site pretending to be me - then the same must apply to Rick Ross' article, or else this is religious discrimination. Until this problem is fixed I think this site should remain the same. I will place an article on my site www.pottersclub.com that will answer CRI's claims.

Nick

www.pottershouse.com.au

Thanks for your reply. Thanks for pointing out the CRI quote. As far as the CRI article goes, I read the relevant section (quoted above) as making (at least) two claims: one is that Rick Ross claims that the Potters House is "cultic and dangerous", and the other is that "others" allege "mind control" etc. I don't see anything to suggest that Ross is the source of information. It sounds like they are paraphrasing actual testimonies. They are not even claiming that what Ross or what the others are saying is true - they are simply saying that claims have been made. If Ross is as bad as you say (and I tend to agree that he is a sensationalist) then critically minded readers are sure to reject his claims. It's not up to us to prevent them from seeing what this guy has claimed and thus preventing them from assessing it for themselves.

Again, with (removed) site, I know that this guy has made unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims. I don't consider him have a very pleasant personality. But it's not up to us to determine whether he is telling the truth or not. Surely the readers can look to his claims and decide that for themselves? I only cite the guy to show that this individual has made certain claims, not that those claims are true. I cite the pro-Potters House ones for the same reason.

Perhaps you should report the relevant site(s) that is(are) making slanderous accusations against you to Yahoo (or others) and have them delete it(them)?

And if you believe that your additions to Ross's article are relevant, appropriated nuanced, etc and have been deleted because of your religious beliefs, then perhaps you should get an Admin to intervene. There are a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms available and I encourage you to use them.

--GuyIncognito 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The potters house people here say they do not sin, but violate laws. They try to teach religion outside of our schools, they say something is happening here, and when you get there they will lock you in and preach to you... Think about that. 24.117.234.228 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Some small town "satan worshiper"

Statements of fact versus statements of opinion

"A group known as "Slam The Door" claimed to be "survivors" of the Potter's House. It was shown that they had assumed multiple identities on their site, giving the impression of more allegations of abuse than there really were."

The aforementioned statement is a recent addition to the 'criticism of the church' section. I realise that this is the conclusion that has been drawn by a number of Potters House advocates. I also believe that such an opinion is not unreasonable in the circumstances. But I also believe that there are several other alternative viewpoints. So I do not think it is appropriate to claim that anything was "shown" to be the case. It has merely been claimed to be the case, in this instance, by the editor Jlujan69. Do you not see the distinction between something that is commonly agreed upon, such as the statment that several Potters House advocates have made a set of claims, and something that is not commonly agreed upon, that the claims are in fact true?

Ok. I changed the entry to reflect something more neutral, I believe.Jlujan69 23:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"For example, on several of the sites, the same letters are posted and the sites tend to reference each other. This suggests the same people are posting on multiple sites. "

I'm not totally sure what this is meant to mean. Does it mean that people have sent the same letters in to multiple sites? Have they done so under alternate names? It's just that based on the way I've interpreted the statement above, it doesn't appear to allege anything inappropriate. Aren't people allowed to post on multiple sites? Isn't it only inappropriate if they claim to be different people? And is it wrong to reference each other, particularly when they all claim to be 'victims' of a common experience? To me the claim seems a bit to ambiguous in its current form.

--GuyIncognito 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that someone reading about PH on these various sites may read the same letter not realizing it, and come away with an inaccurate conclusion that there are more allegations of abuse in PH than there really are. As far as these groups citing one another goes, I just wish I could see more original research done by them instead of simply "regurgitating" the same information and allegations. If I were to set up an informational website and quote your website and very little of anything else, then what have I really accomplished? All I've done is re-post what you've already said.Jlujan69 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'll just slightly change the recent addition you made to break it into two paragraphs, but won't substantially change the content. --GuyIncognito 03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Advance warning

I intend to delete every line that contains a 'citation needed' warning after it. I am warning in advance, because editors have had several months to add relevant sources but have not done so. Perhaps Nick or Jlujan69 could leave a note telling me that they are going to put the sources up soon, and I will not remove the relevant sections.

I am sure that the church has some kind of newsletter or yearly statistics publication. These would be valid sources I believe. Please try to include them because a lot of the article will be deleted otherwise.

Thanks

--GuyIncognito 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have created a new site http://www.waymanmitchell.com which has alot of Potter's House books scanned in which contain the citations required. I am very busy at present and am a bit pressed for time. If you could give me a bit more time I will do it.

Nick.

www.waymanmitchell.com

Just for reference, even Dave Hunt seems to have been critisized by CRI http://cultlink.com/sentinel/criattack.html. I love Dave Hunt and his teachings. CRI have been accused as being very Pro Catholic of late. Perhaps I could add this to the article somehow.

Nick.

www.pottershouse.com.au

As far as CRI goes, I'm sure that they have their share of critics. I'm not sure that just because they criticized Dave Hunt, though, this should affect their credibility. The main criticism I've seen that people have of Dave Hunt is that he is so lacking in expertise and so rarely adheres to scholarly standards that no critically minded reader could take him seriously. Perhaps this is true, perhaps it isn't. To criticise Dave Hunt doesn't necessarily make you a fan of Catholicism - just look at James White's website to see that!

Either way, this article contains plenty of Potter's House references even though, clearly, the Potter's House is logically going to have a 'pro-Potter's House' bias. I suggest looking at the claims CRI have made, examine the evidence they cite in support for those claims, and determine if the inference they seek to connect the two with has a sufficient warrant. Then construct a counter-argument and post it on the internet. That way readers can hear what you think is wrong with their arguments, as opposed to what you think is wrong with them.

--GuyIncognito 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross

It seems that the people at the Rick Ross site are sick of me coming to thier site and trying to make it neutral, i.e. saying EVERY side of the story. They have deleted the Link to Rick Ross whick I have put back up, but yet show that sites like the cracked pots and life after the potter's house are to be allowed. I hope that these people who are hell bent on getting these links off Wiki will not show bias next time but will kindly delete all sites that are "of poor quality" and let the others remain (sic). It would be good to perhaps discuss their intentions before deleting the links also Potters house 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

As for the Rick Ross references, I'm not defending what they are doing because I have no involvement in that particular article. But it's possible that the website simply attacks Ross' character rather than the arguments that he puts forward. Let's for the sake of argument say someone is an athiest and a homosexual and has a criminal past. They're not saying "trust me because I'm a nice guy" they're saying "listen to the claims being made and if the evidence backs them up then believe them". I don't think it's very helpful to point out all this stuff about a guy when his arguments are based on particular interpretations rather than on him being some kind of eye-witness.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial. [1]

--GuyIncognito 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that a citation is needed that Ross claims the CFM is a cult is strange. On his site it claims to be:

"A database of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RRI) is a nonprofit public resource with a vast archive that contains thousands of individual documents. RRI on-line files include news stories, research papers, reports, court documents, book excerpts, personal testimonies and hundreds of links to additional relevant resources. This database is well-organized for easy access and reference."

With titles like "A Cult In Prescott" or "There Is Genuine Life Outside The Potter's House" it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Rick Ross claims that CFM is a cult. He also says this on Google groups openly. (I will find source)

It is like having your name on a list of Pedophiles on some watchdog web group; but then they turn around and say that they are not claiming that you are a pedophile and ask you to prove where they said that. it is self explanitory. Potters house 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

You're correct. I'm not sure who put that 'citation needed' thing there.

--GuyIncognito 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the Ross boys hate the link because it has alot of evidence about Ross. But what needs to made clear is that yahoo groups, crackedpots, slam the Door etc, are even less credible than the link I am putting up. So if the RR link goes - then so do all the others. How come there is a warning about the deletion of links but they can just delete as they feel like it? Potters house 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Nick

Is RR a wiki sponsor or something? Potters house 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Nick

Is Potters House being paid to promote slander of Rick Ross? For God's sake, that "critique of Ross by an unknown organization" -- yeah, that's a freaking reliable source right there -- doesn't just assert that Ross is homosexual; it tries to argue that such a conclusion can be inferred from ways he could have (but did not) complete a sentence that starts "I have previously ..."

Nick also still likes to play fast and loose with the facts in other ways. "With titles like "A Cult In Prescott" or "There Is Genuine Life Outside The Potter's House" it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Rick Ross claims that CFM is a cult." So, Nick -- if your local public library carries a book titled "God is Dead", are you going to claim that by carrying that book, the library itself is claiming that God is dead? No? Then where is the logic of saying 'Ross reprints an article whose title is "A Cult in Prescott?"' -- note the question mark in that title, a significant detail you omitted -- 'and therefore Rick Ross himself is claiming that CFM is a cult'? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that what Nick is claiming is "self-explanatory", isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a public library, which carries titles on many topics, and a website which specializes in one particular area. So, if my local public library carried a book critical of PH, I wouldn't conclude that the library was anti-PH. OTOH, if a cult specialty store carried a PH book in its " modern day cults" section, I'd consider the possibility that it was claiming PH was a cult. After examining Ross's site, I fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn but that Ross believes those organizations on his site are either "cultic or destructive". He's clearly not claiming that the groups on his site are mainstream or "healthy".Jlujan69 05:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that in your bookstore analogy, you say "I'd consider the possibility", and in the case of Ross, you say "I fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn" -- i.e., you wouldn't consider any other possibility. Why -- besides personal prejudice against Ross himself, something that Nick is doing his very best to promote -- would you discount out of hand the possibility that Ross is keeping an open mind on whether PH is a cult, but is examining the evidence which suggests it may be and making that evidence available for others to examine? Are you saying that one can either be looking at the evidence or keeping an open mind, but never both? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know who made the Ross site. His name is Neil Taylor. At the time Neil made it, he was a good friend of mine. The site had good info and heaps of scanned items so the reader can make their own conclusion. My argument though is this - have a good look at the sites, if they are not acceptable then we can only conclude that most of the sites against the Potter's House Church in this article are also unacceptable. In other words, when they are removed then the others will also be, that is only fair. Potters house 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Also as far as Antaeus Feldspar stating that because Rick Ross has the Potter's House listed on his site doesn't mean that Rick thinks we are a cult, perhaps in a court you would get away with that reasoning, but in reality, a group listed on a cult buster site would usually mean that the owner/manager of the site considered the group as cultic. Sorry for using such simple logic. Potters house 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Ahhhhh, I see, so your own personal acquaintance with the author of that website makes it a reliable source? Hmmmm, I don't think so.

As far as your "simple logic", I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you add 2 and 2 and 2, they won't add up to 7, and no matter how many times you assemble the facts you do have, they simply don't support the conclusion that you want. Saying "Rick Ross maintains an eye on groups that many people consider cults; Rick Ross undoubtedly agrees in some of these cases that that the group is a cult; ergo in this specific case he clearly not only thinks but states that the group is a cult" is just plain wrong. I really have to shake my head at your bizarre statement "perhaps in a court you would get away with that reasoning," as if in a court of law you would be able to make any sort of claim you want that "Rick Ross states this!" and "Rick Ross states that!" and that "perhaps" someone might "get away with" pointing out that your statements are entirely your own guesswork, which you have been unable to support with actual evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I run a site saying Elvis is alive, collect many articles claiming this, have a database of multiple anonymous emails claiming that Elvis is alive, and offer no alternate conclusion, most people would conclude that indeed I myself thought Elvis was indeed alive! But because I don't specifically say that Elvis is alive on my site, if anyone concludes that, then they are "pointing out that their statements are entirely their own guesswork, which they have been unable to support with actual evidence," and they are "much like adding 2 and 2 and 2, and coming up with 7." Potters house 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

I guess that is why he has http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html on his site! Potters house 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you're trying to be sarcastic, but I guess you'll just have to settle for being correct. No matter how much you convince yourself with "simple logic" that a particular person must hold a particular point of view, you simply are not entitled to insert that personal conclusion when you cannot actually show any confirming evidence. If you run a site (I'm modifying your imprecise analogy, here) which collects articles claiming Elvis is alive, speculations on how Elvis might be still alive despite all the evidence of death, anonymous claims from others that they have seen Elvis alive, et cetera, am I entitled to insert in a Wikipedia article "Nick of Potter's House thinks Elvis is still alive", when you have never said such a thing? No. Either you said it, in which case I can insert the statement with a reference showing where you said it, so that others can check the context, or you didn't say it. If you didn't say it, I have no right to use my "simple logic" to assume it's what you must be thinking and falsely assert that you said it anyways.

And it would be even more wrong for me to do so if you actually had a disclaimer on your site indicating that merely gathering in one place the claims and assertions and speculations of others that Elvis was alive did not mean you necessarily believed that to be true. If I choose to believe that your disclaimer is insincere, that you really must actually believe that Elvis is alive or else you'd never accumulate so much material relating to the idea of Elvis being alive, well, that's my privilege as a reader, to decide what I believe and do not believe. But it is clearly not my privilege as a Wikipedia editor to falsely assert that "Nick claims Elvis is still alive" when you have never done so, and it is especially wrong if I do so based on the assumption "Nick must think Elvis is still alive, if he spends so much time discussing it", ignoring your disclaimer which specifically states "the fact that I so often discuss the possibility of Elvis still being alive doesn't mean that I think or claim that he is." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ross Links

As stated before, there are numerous sites that are linked to in this article that are of equal or lesser quality that must also be deleted if the ones Antaeus Feldspar are removed. That is only fair. These include

"Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [(Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([(Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices. "

So:

(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots (Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House (Deleted Link) Slam The Door!

Two of these also appear on the bottom of the page also. All would agree that if the links Antaeus Feldspar continually deletes for being poor quality, then it is only fair if I then proceed to delete the above links also. I will put the ones Antaeus Feldspar deleted back for now, if they are deleted again I will also have to delete these other "poor quality" links. Potters house 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29 for the refusal of the "poor quality links".

Why dont you talk here and not in the history bar, can we not be resonable about this? I have retained the links you deleted, and will make a complaint about your unappropriate behavior if the vandalism continues. You seem to approve the "poor quality" links that seem to smear the church yet continue to delete the "poor quality" links that seem to smear Rick Ross. This is a double standard. Either delete ALL so called poor "quality links" or delete none. You are not been neutral here and you are not contributing to the article but mearly defending slandereous links and deleting links that refute the slanderers. Potters house 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

minor change

In the Church Doctrine section, I changed the last sentence to allow that thought to proceed more smoothly from the previous sentences and still be neutral--or something like that. I'm hardly an English grammar major!Jlujan69 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "militant" under Church Activity. The word is clearly pejorative.--LawrenceTrevallion 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Sentence

The following sentence, in my reading of WP:RS, could be considered a secondary source of information, reviewing a primary source, the rickross.com web site.

"Rick Ross also has many critics himself and his anti cult practices such as deprogramming, but has made an effort to answer them on his site Rick Ross answers his critics Rick Ross speaks out against sites that claim to expose him"

As Wikipedia should be a tertiary source, I would suggest this sentence should not be included. Addhoc 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Please resolve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House before deleting any more links. Potters house 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Tilman 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&action=history This is his response. I noticed that he says that he has been accused before:

"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case"

He doesn't want to talk about the issues but mearly posts short messages in the history.

Tillman who defends Ross seems to work for him, but that's ok, but not for neutral articles see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tilman look at his article contributions they are all against scientology, Rick Ross has had a recent lawsuit against them, check out his deletion selection on 1 August 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060804173200&limit=50&target=Tilman

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&action=history

The link (Deleted Link) seems to be a problem but almost half of the anti PH links are nowhere near as good quality!

"See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&action=history This is his response." No, that is a link to the entire history of my talk page. I suspect that this is the edit you refer to, however. If you examine the edit summary, you will see that it says "rm section that simply duplicates a discussion on article talk page; see header". This is a reference to a warning I have had on my user talk page for well over a year now: "if you are planning to post the exact same complaints to my user page and to the talk page of the article you're upset about, don't be surprised when it's deleted from here." Except now, you are acting surprised! You posted the exact same content to this page and to my user talk page and then when I remove this absolutely useless duplication, you try to twist that into "He doesn't want to talk about the issues but mearly posts short messages in the history." Well, pardon my French, Nick, that's bullshit. It is not, perhaps, as atrocious and malicious bullshit as when you posted messages to thirty separate user talk pages and to WP:AN as well falsely accusing me of being a racist, an absolutely indefensible lie for which you have still not had the class, courtesy, or guts to apologize. But it is still bullshit, as anyone can easily see by looking at this article talk page and reading how many times I tried to get basic facts about "the issues" through to you -- basic things such as 'you cannot invent words to put in Rick Ross's mouth, just because in your mind, it sounds like something you think he'd say.' If I stopped posting long messages to you, it was because you made it quite clear that, no matter how often or at what length the rules were explained to you, you would continue to insist that "simple logic" entitled you to falsely attribute statements to people and the "interesting testimony" of Johnny Lee Clary would allow you to keep creating new articles about him to replace the ones deleted by the proper AfD process ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). But if you would like to explain what, exactly, one could say to you that would make you stop your sleazy smear jobs against other editors, and start actually paying attention to the rules instead of just trying to sneak around them, oh, then, by all means, tell us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell Links

That's much better, there is a bit too much cluttler in here.Potters house 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we discuss the "Guardian of the Truth or Garner of Attention?" Web Site...

Have I read this web site correctly? Does it really say:

"if Ross is a Homosexual he has been betraying those he claims to help by acting on his own hatred of women."

If the site is saying homosexual = misogynist, then at the very least, this would unverified research and consequently would not be appropriate for inclusion even for an external link. Addhoc 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

rrexposed is an anonymous smear site, probably from scientology (the altered pictures are from them, and its their modus operandi). Should be deleted per WP:WEB. The other site is just of poor quality, but is somewhat relevant (since it is a response to Ross by the Potter group). --Tilman 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree the rrexposed link should not be included. Addhoc 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the other links then! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House Potters house 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I found this site. Personally, I consider the rrexposed site to contain unverified claims and therefore in my understanding of WP:RS should not be included. Could you explain your concerns regarding the other sites in terms of WP:RS and WP:EL? Addhoc 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The other links aren't hate sites. Please understand that a religious group - even one that isn't a cult - will have to live with criticism. The best thing to do would be to discuss the criticism, maybe make changes / reforms, instead of smearing the attackers. Read the 10 commendments (if the Bible is read in your group) - there's something about "bearing false witness". I could get a reference if you can't find it. --Tilman 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, I don't consider this comment to be very helpful. Addhoc 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross web Sites

Could we discuss whether these web site are reliable sources?

Potters House, are you indicating that in your understanding they are unverified research? Addhoc 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cracked Pots and Life after Potter's House web site

The [(Deleted Link) Cracked Pots] link and [(Deleted Link) Life after Potter's House] link, which is a geocities site, appears to be non-reliable sources. Tilman, could you explain why you consider they are reliable sources? Addhoc 10:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Life after Potter's House uses sounds files from the founder to criticize him, plus court files excerpts that indicate a perjury. If these files aren't found elsewhere, I would no longer reference it because it's mostly a link list.

The Cracked Pots contain many first hand testimonies of ex-members, and first hand quotes from "Potty" pastors.

Why do you think that these are not reliable sources - because they are set on free websites? I understand that Nick's criticism is mostly that they inflate their membership, not that their contents is somehow untrue. --Tilman 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm suggesting the sites could be regarded as primary sources. According to WP:RS "we may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher". Addhoc 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me apply the same standard to the link about Ross

You say that Life after the Potter's House should be retained because it has direct quotes from Mitchell etc. These quotes are out of context and if you listed to the entire sermon you will clearly see that. Because he says “rap music says bitches and whores” doesn’t mean that HE uses those terms, but that Rappers use those terms, the audios are out of context and biased. They guy has things like http://www.geocities.com/life_after_potters_house/womwealth.jpg which is just obvious slander and not good research.

Let me apply the same standard to the link about Ross:

Look at the rrexposed site (Deleted Link) - we see quotes from Rick Ross to criticize him, plus court files excerpts that indicate criminal past. If these files aren't found elsewhere, I would no longer reference it because it's mostly a link list.

The rrexposed site contains many first hand testimonies Psychiatrists, Judges, and Ross himself, and first hand quotes from Ross in court about many issues.

The issue is that you seem to feel that it is fine to delete the Ross page because of "poor quality" but then want keep other ones which have less quality. Mainly because you have already sided against the church. The Rick Ross site is of 10 fold better quality than the anti PH links, and it is private too, not geocities or yahoo. It has photo copies of all the court transcripts revealing Ross' Homosexuality. You then concluded: :Why do you think that these are not reliable sources - because they are set on free websites?" No because it is just lies and slander. Then:

I understand that Nick's criticism is mostly that they inflate their membership, not that their contents is somehow untrue.

Tilman how can one ever prove what others say as untrue if they claims are things like "all people in the Potter's House are feel trapped but lie about it", "you are a closet homo" or "the Potter's House is filled with secret perverts who have a strong desire to have sex with animals", how can you disprove all of that? As sick as that may seem to most, as a Christian, what they are implying that - I am a Homosexual, Wayman Mitchell teaches pastors to have prostitutes, I am a masturbator, we always lie, our church is a pyramid money making scheme, we are all brainwashed...etc I could go on and on, but lets just look at some of these real accusations:

How can I disprove the claim that I am a Homosexual? Do I then have to get a medical examination to prove I have not had sex with a man? Sounds crude but think about how sick this is to us who see homosexuality as forbidden in the bible.

How can it be proven that Mitchell doesn't tell his pastors to have prostitutes, if I said that you secretly show your family pornography, and that all your family are liars, how would you disprove that?

How can I disprove the accusation that I am a masturbator? I mean this is ridiculous!

How can I disprove I am not brainwashed? It is like me saying “someone who likes Michael Moore books and films and believes it is brainwashed? You could say that I am wrong but how do you prove it! It is silly, and goes against all reasonable debate.

I know I have been crass, but these are REAL accusations they have made against me and the church leadership, there are 100' of other allegations that are just as silly.

Tilman, how can these be disproved? And if some things can be disproved, how much time do I spend disproving these things. Can a medical report disprove homosexuality? Can I prove I am not brainwashed? And anyway, they call me a liar etc, so it wouldn't matter – they would just make up something else, a practice they have been proven to do.

Let Rick Ross disprove that he is a Homosexual. Let him disprove that he hates all Christians. Let him disprove that he is not a psycho with a dangerous past. See what I mean? How can one disprove these things? Either the RR site stays and all anti PH ones stay, or the RR site goes and all anti PH (the slanderous ones only) go too. That is true neutrality.

If the RR site isn't "credible" enough I can always of duplicate it myself to make it more credible and more acceptable to Wiki. I have http://www.newsau.com and can run the material from the RR - exposed site there (seeing it has no copyright) and I can have a links page just like the Life in the Potters House, but one that links to all anti Ross pages. Potters house 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned whether Rick Ross is a homosexual or not. However, the www.rrexposed appears to indicate that homosexuality equates with misogyny and this in my understanding constitutes unverified research. Regarding the other web sites, I am not yet convinced they are secondary sources of information. Addhoc 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but why arn't you looking at the other pages that are anti Potter's House? You seem to be only concerned with the anti RR site, but are no even acknowleging that the people who made them are of equal or even less credability! Potters house 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that Rick Ross does not have any formal academic qualifications and this has significance in determining whether his site is a reliable source. According to WP:RS:

"Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree... The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."

In this context, I am not convinced the following web sites are reliable secondary sources.

Rick Ross answers his critics
Rick Ross speaks out against sites that claim to expose him
[(Deleted Link) Cracked Pots]
[(Deleted Link) Life after Potter's House]

Addhoc 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross is certainly reputable in his field. He has many years experience. See Rick Ross. And he's certainly an expert about himself. The other websites are evidence that there is criticism - not that this criticism is "right". --Tilman 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Rick Ross has experience, but no qualifications. In the field of new religious movements, has he demonstrated published expertise? The other web sites appear to be primary sources of information and in this context, I don't think we should use them. Addhoc 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

His cultnews.com blog is often quoted by the media, and he has held lectures at universities. [8] [9] [10] Although he's controversial, I wouldn't say this is just a guy with an opinion and a blog. --Tilman 13:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, WP:RS gives the following advice:

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."

So the criteria are "well known", which isn't a problem and "professional researcher", which isn't completely implausible. However his work, must have been published by a credible third party publication. I would consider this more than just a newspaper interviewing him or quoting him. Has there been anything? Addhoc 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're asking for too much, in my opinion. Ross hasn't written books. But he has been invited for lectures at universities. Some well known researchers have endorsed him. [11] That gives him a lot of credibility. --Tilman 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We are missing the point: 1)there are links that claim things against the Potter's House by people whom have been proven liars, slanderers etc. I have never tried to delete Rick Ross links, because I believe he is credible but misinformed about the Potter's House and often quotes the people who have been proven as liars, gossips, and slanderers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House 2) The same person who made the RRexposed also made the Cracked Pots site! He made the RR exposed while he was a Potter's House pastor but has now left and has made the site cracked pots. If you feel that the RRexposed is unreliable etc, then the same must apply for the cracked pots site. If Joe Blog wrote made a site saying that George bush is a homosexual, a liar, deceiver and is insane, and the SAME PERSON makes a site saying that Tony Blair is a homosexual, a liar, deceiver and is insane, it would be biased to used links to one site and not the other. The Slam the Door people run a Yahoo group claiming that I am a Homosexual, that pastor Mitchell teaches pastors to have prostitutes, that I have left the Potter's House and read pornography, etc. What I am saying is, if you see the RRexposed as not valid, I feel you are being very biased when you claim that the cracked pot is valid, or Slam the door, or Life in the Potter's House.

The guys name is Neil Taylor, the same Neil whom I have talked about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House In the View source on the page Why this site (Deleted Link)why_this_site.htm if you search for Neil you will see:

Arizona Republic/November 6, 1982 <a href="file:///D:/Neils%20Stuff/Rick%20Ross%20Web%20Page/bigotry_lurks_in_born_again.htm" style="color: #0080FF">"Bigotry

I knew Neil while he was a pastor, he has since left the Potter's House, his wife left him and is a lesbian, and Neil being embittered created the cracked pots. He is a proven liar - again see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House

I know that some of the info he gives is factual on the RRexposed site, but some is slander, because he made the site when he was quite an honest guy back in the day, but has since become a complete liar, hence the reason for the more recent lies on Yahoo groups and cracked pots etc. He even has (deleted link) is_rick_ross_a_child_molester.htm . It may not be mentioned as a link on the RRexposed main page but it comes up in Google, much like the links on the cracked pots, life after the potters house, slam the door etc, they are vicious and often dangerous AS ARE THE ANTI PH LINKS!

If you use the information solely for the deletion of the RRexposed only, that is showing bias, the cracked pots, life after the potters house, slam the door links MUST GO TOO!

I tire of deleting and replacing links. If this links thing cannot be resolved I will make a more factual site here www.newsau.com to expose Ross and make it fit for Wiki, I don't want to go that route but feel forced because of the bias here. I do have credability and will not remain anonymous. Nick Sayers Potters house 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Only you "proved" them as "liars". Your "evidence" only proved that somebody was slandering somebody, and somebody was accusing somebody to be a sockpuppet.
This only shows that the name of someone is "Neil". If this "Neil" guy is yours, why didn't he mention his affiliation? It could as well be Karen Neil [12]. I believe that this smear site was created by scientology, because that is their modus operandi.
What "credability" do you have? Your arguments here haven't persuaded me. Your logic was often flawed. Do you think you satisfy the tough criteria set by user:Addhoc ?
Why so angry about Rick Ross only? There's criticism by others as well, e.g. Steve Hassan.
Finally, why all the fuss? As I told before, most of the definition is "yours". The criticism section is small, and it has a rebuttal.

--Tilman 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Ahh well it looks like I am getting nowhere with you, I knew neil like the posts in the mediation say, but you seem to think I am lying. Forget it, Newsau.com will be the largest site for information about Rick Ross one the net. Potters house 12:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But how will you turn this into a "reliable source" according to WP:RS? Plus - why waste the time? The usual criticism against Ross is already in Wikipedia. --Tilman 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also if it was scientolgy based the dead link on http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/rossr17.html would be fixed by now. Neil Taylor was boasting to me how he made the site. Potters house 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was him, why didn't he delete it now that he has a different opinion about Potters House? Or do you allege that he dislikes both? --Tilman 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

Ok, I agree with User:Potters house in that if we are saying that "RRexposed" is an unreliable source, then "Cracked Pots", "Life after the Potter's House" and "Slam the Door" links also should be considered unreliable. Concerning the Rick Ross site, I consider this site is slightly borderline, however I don't object to it being included. Addhoc 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is, to what degree do we need to rely on these sites? I've been a bit sick lately, so I haven't been able to keep up with all the fol-de-rol, but in this case I think it's good, because I was able to come back with fresh eyes and notice something glaring about this whole kerfuffle:

Why is Nick so insistent on having Ross criticize his organization?

Why? If the article contained claims against the Potter's House for which we were taking Rick Ross's word, then maybe information about Ross might be considered important, to "impeach" Ross's testimony. But that's not the case! For all that the article claims Ross to be one of the most vocal critics of Potter's House, there is exactly one criticism that Ross is alleged to be making about Potter's House, and all the evidence indicates that it is falsely attributed to Ross. That criticism, allegedly made by Ross, is that Potter's House is a cult; however, this is by all the evidence not something Ross has ever said, but rather something that Nick deduces that Ross believes. In Nick's own words, "in reality, a group listed on a cult buster site would usually mean that the owner/manager of the site considered the group as cultic. Sorry for using such simple logic." [13] Nick himself points out Ross's disclaimer, where Ross states that merely being on the site does not mean that the group is a cult, or is harmful or destructive,[14] but even after that feels he is entitled to draw exactly those conclusions which the disclaimer warns he is not justified in drawing, and ignore any request that he provide actual support for the claims he makes.[15]

So why is Nick so insistent on including a criticism against his organization that he can't show any evidence that its supposed originator ever made? Well, let's look at it this way: The "Cracked Pots" and "Slam the Door" and other sites may not be very reliable sources, but neither is the claim these sources are supporting an extravagant claim: it is basically the claim that there are disaffected ex-members. It would be quite some feat to find a site of disaffected ex-members that was too unreliable to support the claim "there are disaffected ex-members." So, if someone wanted to cover up the existence of such ex-members, or at least remove any links to those ex-members so that readers would have a hard time getting to see the other side of the story, what could they do? Well, they could do exactly what Nick's doing: trying to force an absolutely unacceptable external link into the article, in order to impugn the integrity of someone whose word would be questionable if his word was actually being taken for anything, which the evidence suggests it isn't -- and then, when that smear link was rightfully rejected, try to bargain and say "All right, if you won't let me have this link which supports nothing of importance in the article, then I insist that you remove this other link, which acknowledges that there is another side to the story besides that of my organization!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that this link is missing: [16]. Which is 3rd party content that is on Ross site, but not by Rick Ross. --Tilman 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine forget it, I am tired of your rating and missing the point and blindly supporting ross but rejecting me. Have the link - i.e. you win. I have started on http://www.newsau.com and will continue to build it until it is the biggest site of reference for Rick Ross, oh and mine has a disclaimer too, so please don't accuse me. I have access to 112 web pages that I can put the link on staight away. This will be next to the actual RickRoss.com site in google soon. Potters house 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

newsau.com is of course not a reliable source. The first page already shows it's just a smear site. --Tilman 17:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He made it with another guy from the States. I knew him quite well, and remember him boasing about putting the flaming website award on the site. Rick Ross thinks Brett Mason made it, this is a smokescreen - probably from Neil, Breet is a Potter's House pastor in Melbourne who Neil hates, see: (Deleted Link)is_there_a_thief_in_oakleigh.htm This is in the "shame files." Right under where Neil accuses Wayman Mitchell of having prostitutes in "The Phoenix Connection?" - what a jerk.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if you read through the mediation, you will see that he pretended to be a multitude of people to try and deceive us, he pretended to be my Ex girlfriend for crying out loud!

He was a Pastor who had about 5-10 people, never saw much happen, he was known for slandering other pastors. His wife left him and became a lesbian, he became embittered towards christians and hence the site.

I don't want to make an anti RR site, but seem to be forced into doing so. If the same type of slander and gossip about the PH are continually linked to, it seems that there is credability to it. If people hear a lie perpetually they will believe it! The only way then is to discredit those people. As a back up I am working on a site dealing with neil, also (removed), Perry Bale, George Potkonyak, etc, and thier relationship with the Rick Ross corporation, if the links remain. You wouldn't like to see your friends and family called, liars, deceivers, adulterers, homosexuals, child molesters, etc if it wasn't true.

I am also working on a site that deals with the claims on Rick Ross .com from a christian perspective, i.e. answering every article critically, asking pastors the other side of the story, because I know first hand also that alot of what Rick has on his site is from Neil, (removed), George, under many different names! I intend on proving that. A critical biography of Ross is on the cards, as well as newsau. I cannot validate anything on Newsau and would prefer not to build it, but feel that there is no compromise or negaotions whatsoever. Most PH sites will link to newsau, because we are tired of the lies. Potters house 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Surpisingly, I actually think Ross does a very good Job on hate groups such as Neo Nazis, KKK etc, also scientolgy. Potters house 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you think that Ross does a "very good Job" on "scientolgy" [sic] but that won't stop you from repeating allegations against Ross from their magazine Freedom, even though you freely admit that you "cannot validate anything" on your hate site. I've got two phrases for you to consider, Nick, that you may not ever have heard of before. The first is "malicious disregard for the truth". The second is "integrity". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it must be hard to be on the other side of the fence! We as Potter's House believers have copped this type of flack from Ross for years. It is sad that almost all the content about CFM is by hyper sensationalized media, but that is a side issue and if you want to talk more about this please email me @ nick@nsw1.com. Wiki has a policy NO POV. Keep the subject matter at the fore and lets discuss the links. So if I behave the same as Ross do I now lack integrity? What does this say of Ross? Potters house 07:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A.F. (like many wikipedia users in other discussions, I failed to read the earlier discussion) that if one can't find that Ross says PH is a cult, there's no need to include criticism of Ross there. What could be done instead, is something like this: controversial cult expert Rick Ross, while not making a statement himself, hosts a series of articles critical about Potters House [17]. This would point to his definition, which does explain why he is controversial, and it would point to the newspaper articles about Potters House. --Tilman 17:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Ok, could I suggest the article is unprotected and links to the following sites are not included in the article:

"Cracked Pots"
"Life after the Potter's House"
"RRexposed"
"Slam the Door"

Addhoc 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutly, that is what I have been asking all along, it is only fair that either all of these remain or all are deleted. If they remain, so be it, if they are deleted, so be it. To alow one POV and not another is biased. Potters house 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest instead that we simply remove the claim about Ross calling Potter's House a cult, since after repeated challenges no one has produced any evidence to indicate that he actually did, and since there are no longer statements being attributed to Ross, remove the links alleging this and that and the other thing about Ross. We can also let Nick get back to his announced plan of creating the world's largest site targeting Ross for defamation, collecting every bit of gossip and slander and innuendo and half-baked private theory about Ross that he can find or invent. Because that, apparently, is what "Christians" of Nick's ilk do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is terrible having people say bad things about you, I know first hand, I mean just look at Ross' site! You seem to be claiming that it is unethical to have a site that focuses on the negative newspaper trash articles. Well isn't that what Ross has about the Potter's House? I am just making a site that is based on his morals and ethics. Are you then implying that Ross is being unethical? I don't wish to make the site, but it seems that to fight "gossip and slander and innuendo and half-baked private theory(s)" I must oin turn show the world that there are the same types of things being said about Ross (and amazingly by the same people!). When you guys play hard ball it is resonable, but when I do the same I am unchristian? Like you said yourself Antaeus Feldspar, read the disclaimer! I do not claim that Ross is these things but mearly show that others do, just as Ross claims to do of the Potter's House. I vote to delete all links as stated above, and we can all go back to exposing the real cults like Scientology, KKK, moonies, etc. Potters house 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I think there might be a difference between asking "does this church which espouses Christian values actually practice those Christian values" and asking "can we guess at someone's sexual preference based on a sentence that they didn't even complete? can we allege that they are misogynist, based on the above unverified guess about their sexual preference plus an ill-informed belief that 'homosexual = misogynist'? can we invite readers to speculate that the person is a child "molestor" even as we admit that we have absolutely no evidence, only rumors?" Spreading rumors of child molestation, Nick -- your God must be so proud of you and your talent for vicious gossip. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time, possibly not mention your God etc. Addhoc 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above please keep POV out of this - email me nick@nsw1.com, I know it is hard, I have been angry about the gossip spread by Ross and the Slam the Door people for years now (hence the links I am trying to delete). By you continually putting those links up, you are almost saying you agree with thier claims that I am a homosexual, liar, psycho, brainwashed, wan**r (they have called me worse names but I could be banned for saying them here in wiki), but I am mearly behaving the same as Ross, please name one thing that newsau has about Ross that Ross doesnt have about the PH church! I know Rick is a Jew, does the Jewish God show pride in him and his talent for vicious gossip? You have a double standard sir, and show bias to Ross. I will happily get rid of newsau, if the links mentioned above are dissallowed here on wiki. Potters house 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Sentence

Ok, I'm suggesting this sentence should be removed, because the sources are unreliable:

"Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [(Deleted Link)Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([(Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices."

Could users who would prefer this sentence is retained, explain their reasoning... Addhoc 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If we remove that sentence then we should absolutely remove the sentences that end the preceding section:

"Like all organisations that share in a common mission and goal, there is a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship amongst members. Outwardly, many members exhibit joy in their attendance of the church."

If we cannot acknowledge that ex-members (and Nick has confirmed for us that they are ex-members, not "alleged" ex-members) have alleged the fellowship to be abusive in its practices then there is absolutely no reason that we should be casually asserting that there is "a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship" among current members of the group. Wikipedia has no way of knowing whether these members have "a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship" or not; what could possibly be a source reliable enough to verify someone's inner emotional state? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that uncited material, including the sentence you mention, should be removed. Addhoc 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Potters house 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise

Would the following compromise be acceptable?

1. Remove this sentence "Some alleged ex-members ([(Deleted Link) The Cracked Pots] and [ (Deleted Link) Life After Potter's House]) and an alleged ex-Pastor ([ (Deleted Link) Slam The Door!]) describe the fellowship as abusive and 'un-biblical' in its practices."

2. Also remove these sentences "Like all organisations that share in a common mission and goal, there is a strong sense of camaraderie and fellowship amongst members. Outwardly, many members exhibit joy in their attendance of the church."

3. Agree the [(Deleted Link) RRexposed.com] site shouldn't be included.

Addhoc 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're an admin, be bold and just make the changes. --Tilman 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not an admin. Addhoc 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair, should I also go back through the histoy and delete all links in talk to RRexposed, newsau, crackedpots, life after.., slam the door, etc links?

Only if you have time on your hands. I'll request the page is unprotected, if that's ok. Addhoc 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt at cleanup, which, hopefully, respects both the NPOV / RS suggestions of Addhoc, and my own "ideas". --Tilman 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Nick deleted all the controversial links from the past discussion. I'm not sure if this is ok, since this makes it unclear what we were discussing. Feel free to revert (I don't mind that this paragraph is deleted in the revert as well. --Tilman 07:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, you guys get the new RR link to Anti PH material, and you get the Newsau and RRexposed down, and I get Cracked Pots, Life After the PH, and Slam the door down. I appreciate the help of Addhoc. www.newsau.com is also changed. Potters house 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean when you look at the [Jehovah's Witnesses] article there is hardly any critical links, when it would have to be the most critisized group on the net! Potters house 07:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I was wrong it is on another page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

"One group against whom Potter's House makes this allegation is Slam the Door. It's been claimed by Potter's House advocates that the members of this site each assumed several different identities to inflate their numbers on the site, making it appear that there were more allegations of abuse than there really were. Some critics allegely keep their identities hidden and thus Potter's House defenders claim it is difficult to assess their credibility and the veracity of their claims."

I think that this should be deleted now given that the Slam the Door group is no longer referred to on the page.

GuyIncognito 06:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - from the way it is now, there isn't really any criticism by "Slam the door" left. --Tilman 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slam the door link has been dead for a while now anyway. Potters house 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has any ideas for an official logo or knows where I can get one please put it up here!. 124.183.255.67 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Some links that could be added there are heaps, some are already in use here also, but here they are: http://www.waymanmitchell.com Site about Pastor Wayman Mitchell the Founder of the Potter's House Christian Fellowship

http://www.pottersclub.com A site by a disciple in the Potter's House about doctrines (not an official PH site)

http://www.forumsau.com A forum for Potter's House Christians

http://www.cfmau.com A directory for Australian Churches

http://www.pottershouse.com Beechborro Potter's House Perth WA Australia

http://www.pottershouse.com.au Parramatta Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.worldcfm.com Potter's House World Wide Christian Fellowship

http://fairfield.pottershouse.com fairfield Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.pottershouseramsgate.info Ramsgate Potter's House NSW Australia

http://www.pottershousealicesprings.com Alice Springs Potter's House NT Australia

http://www.pottershouse.tk Boxhill North Potter's House Vic Australia

http://www.pottershouseuk.com Liverpool Potter's House England

http://www.lvchristiancenter.com