Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Criticism of the church

I have requested paragraph 2 of the section be edited. I ask why my editions continue to be reverted. I also point out that there is no mention of "former members" that have left and complained to the various cult network groups. I also ask that the link be provided to a new and current website run by Migual Hayworth the first plumbline which contains current up to date material including video and audio clips from the potters house preachers.

Also the very thing that ex-members complain about namely the "authority structure" of the church has been downplayed to make it seem less important or harmful. I also ask that links to current discussion groups from which the first, both Nick & I are apart of the crackpots and the other escape from the fellowship. These groups have over 2000 posts in the last year each and both providing help and support and open discussion about the potters house, which is a helpful forum for any person to make their own judgement about the church. Darren Smith Feb 17 -2007

In the next few weeks I'm going to propose some editions to the "critics of the church" section. Basically I'm asking for a fair explaination placed as to the current status of the church. I call upon several witnesses or more to help in this. Also consider that the user user:Potters_house has placed several external links to websites which he is a contributor to namely:

Born Again Christian Forums - The Potters Club - Wayman Mitchell Biography Page

If I was accused of pushing my own barrow then what do you call this?? I will be asking for amendments to be made even though I was not present last time. I was a member of the potters house church for 5 years and I can say most definately the information in the critics section is not neutral and the links to the cult-awareness groups provide no EXTRA information, for they are of the same material. Rick Ross should be enough and I suggest placing the firstplumbline on this as well. I also suggest adding a statement to make people aware that the critics themselves are mostly ex-members of the church, which has well been documented in special news reports and other media throughout the internet. You don't find the cult groups protesting against the church but the ex-members that do. Also the lies against the critics being "deceptive" or having "ulterior motives" should be deleted as there is no proof for this statement, for if the critics are mostly ex-members than that changes the meaning of the statments altogether because the church is turning against those that used to be apart of it and not that they are strangers they've never met before as would be implied as it stands. Also the statement the "critics are non-credible, small in number" is also based on unfounded evidence. The proof is in the "authority structure" the "doctrines" and behaviour of the members themselves, this has been well documented so the criticism is credible and so are the people.

The statement "engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet" is talking about (removed) and Neil Taylor who both were potters house pastors and they were involved in yahoo discussion groups. The same person making the accusation also has over the past years used many mutliples user names as well on his groups, so that is not evidence one can use against someone else. The claim they called the said user a homosexual was not true and the said user also has many more times spoken much slander against these men who are ex-pastors of his church fellowship. The said user is the one with the hidden agenda, to discredit anyone who makes valid objections against his church fellowship.

The statement apologetically put "which are not in and of themselves improper, are partially to blame for the negative reactions of those not used to such methods" should be reworded to inform the public of the actual facts with "authority structure" and "discipleship/sheparding" somewhere in there. I suggest also to mention that the preaching of the church is also apart of the criticism as well and I ask that the firstplumbline provide this proof on this section of the article.

I have stated with good and fair reasons to edit "criticism of the church", please state your reasons why not to, with factual evidence to back up "claims" of "deception" of "small in number" that misrepresent the current status of the section. I will be proposing the editions within a couple of weeks after careful consoltation with other users. Please add your comment and together we can redo this section fairly according the correct facts of the matter within a NPOV, thank you.Darrenss 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I requested that you read the mediation and the previous talk on this very subject so that we are not going over and over old ground. The inclusion of poor quality links has been discussed in great detail. Formerly I proposed to include ALL links both for and against, but Rick Ross' friends concluded that the site (made by my former friend Neil Taylor) was of poor quality. My previous argument was that the anti Potter's House sites are of much less quality than the anti Ross site and therefore should also be included. After much discussion we came to a compromise, allowing only quality links. You obviously haven't read the threads or are choosing not to. Please read them and comment on the previous discussions. Potters house 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize links in discussions. Everyone is entitled to bring up links to support an argument in a discussion. --Tilman 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have at least 6 links that are not on the article which prove the above opinions to be false. I was not allowed to include these links in the article previously because the links were not deemed good quality links. For some reason I was allowed to include a link and few sentences about the Slam the Door group to remain. I can understand why that might be removed, but if there is going to be an inclusion of the links that Darrenss requests, then to be fair, the other links I was previously disallowed to put up should also be permitted. Also I propose that Darrenss become more aware of the volume of information written about the above incidents in previous mediation. It is a waste of time discussing things that are elementary to those who have read the mediation and until he understands the issue in detail it is just a waste of time responding to him.

Also the reason I altered the links was because Darren is boasting that one of the primary reasons he is on Wikipedia is to bring the links up higher on Google:

If you read this link you will see his true motives http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7858

He also claims I have a boyfriend (i.e. that I am a homosexual) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7845 Potters house 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was also forbidden to include links on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Potters_house&diff=63427946&oldid=63356998

I will put the links back up seeing that Darren is alowed to have links that slander me. Potters house 05:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm not an admin and I don't really want to play judge here, besides, I am a cult critic myself. So my advice is worth nothing :) But I've got other cults to criticize, so I want "peace" here. Nick kept his part of the "deal", which gives him a slight advantage.

Nick, I reverted your link changes because it looked like vandalism.

Don't worry about that links on wikipedia improve the page rank. I doubt that this applies to links in discussion pages.

My suggestion to Nick: 1) You don't link to rrexposed on your user page. It is a smear site. 2) You can alter any actual link here (on this discussion page) that smears YOU and I won't revert it. (WP:NPA) 3) You don't alter a link that criticizes your group or your leader. You don't alter a link that links to a "deep" link that smears you.

My suggestion to Darrenss: 1) You don't post links that smear Nick, claim he is gay etc. whatever. (I don't say that you did) No personal attacks. It also doesn't help your cause if you do this outside of wikipedia, while mentioning wikipedia. 2) Wikipedia is not a link farm. There is a policy for adding external links. WP:EL. Read it. Read also WP:RS. Wikipedia ist not there to promote your own links. If your link is good, somebody else might add it some day. 3) Read the past discussion, especially what Addhoc has been saying. 4) Please understand that the critic section has five (!) links to critic sites. That is pretty good. Yes, there is a rebuttal, but it is pretty lame (sock puppets etc), so who cares? 5) You can add criticism, but it has to be sourced per WP:RS --Tilman 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick I am so sick of the silly games you play, when are you going to grow up. It's fine for you to argue with all of us and provoke us and than you turn around and claim I or (removed) have said bad things about you, grow up. Firstly people coming on the escape from the fellowship group don't know we are talking about you away. Secondly you are not a spokesperson for the fellowship. Your opinions of the "anti-cfm" or "slammers" is NOT the view of the fellowship but you make people think that it is. Why in the world are you allowed to put http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ as a REFERENCE and an external link?? This site is slanderous and contains no independant references whatsoever. It is nothing but a fan club site that you've made and furthermore contains the most slanderous rubbish against so called "slammers" and "Rick Ross" himself - http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Critics.htm

Now stop using claims of people pursecuting you, this has NOTHING to do with the potters house at all. You dug your own grave when you criticise and slander ex-members of your church. This is what Nick said to (removed) recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/6066

Now grow up and let's talk about this section. I will be pushing for changes because your opinion is not the view of the fellowship, Wayman Mitchell wouldn't even have a clue who you are, you're not even a pastor. So just do the right thing and we can get to the business at hand without the mud slinging, thank you.Darrenss 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement about Ian Wilson because he wrote the other book humbly called "Wayman Mitchell" not the open door. Anyway he already left the fellowship last year. Always got the authors confused. Darrenss 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention the term "potters house advocates". Who exactly is this refering to? The potters house members, the pastors or Nick - Potters house??

Can it be proven independantly that the "critics" are small in number, have deceptive tactics etc? The research done on http://www.equip.org/free/DP080.htm in the section "concerns" lists EX-members as one of the objections against the group. Also listed is the authority structure as well. Don't you think this is much more reliable than just taking Potters house word on the matter. After all where are the refences to paragraph 2 of the "criticism of the church" section? Where is the proof to make such bold claims? Somebody please explain.Darrenss 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the link http://www.equip.org/free/DP080.htm is dated now saying silly things like CFM doesn't have a clear doctrinal statement etc, when for 20+ years now Wayman Mitchell the senior pastor of the Fellowship has been recommending the book, the Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, and most CFM sites have doctrinal statements. Their concerns over tongues etc, are the same with the any Pentecostal Church, as with their critical view on healing. So much of the article is not about the Potter’s House per se but about Pentecostalism. Like I said, I don't mind having any view linked to as long as there is also permission to link similar pages that show the other side of the story. The problem is that people like Rick Ross and friends don't want links to sites that expose Ross and Co. So here we have a dilemma. Darrenss wants freedom of speech as I also do, but are currently being restricted because of certain Wikipedia criteria - poor quality links. Darrenss should be restricted on for the same reasons, unless the other links such as the Anti Rick Ross sites are permitted also, otherwise the site should remain where it currently is, because if you read through Darrenss' history his SOLE purpose for being in Wikipedia is to defame the church. I think that should be also taken into consideration.

Some sites that Darrenss wants to link to are by people who have made claims that I am a Homosexual and have left the Church. Darren also recently claimed that I have a boyfriend http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7845 and that the sole reason for being on Wikipedia was to have his favorite links be dragged up in the search engines http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/7858 . So dispite the fact that he is basically slandering me, there is also the previous issue that had been discussed indepth in the mediation. Much of what Darrenss proclaims are "unvarified claims" are spoken about in the talk of the mediation. Perhaps he is just ignoring it. I actually thought that it was sorted out but someone said recently that it was never a closed case. It is hard when you appeal to Wiki "staff" for help and something like that was never finalised. But in order to defend myself from slander I would prefer to mediate again.

Anyway cheers! Potters house 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read the mediation but like I said I wasn't there the first time. I am well within my rights to bring up this issue again. Nick stop pasting shortcuts to conversations from the yahoo groups. You have said worse things than me. I want the truth to be stated here not your personal views. You paste links to sites you yourself have created and think they are evidence somewhat.

Stop making personal attacks against me, you've provoked me over and over and then claim what I say about the potters house is all lies because of our own disputes. Well that has nothing whatsoever to do with it and I ask you to talk about the potters house page and refrain from attacking me. I can chat with my friends on escape from the fellowship and I don't need your permission do I? I'm still going to suggest changes you have no "proof" to your defence in this section so I will be suggesting changes. Whether you like it or not, its about the truth of the situation not your personal views. You don't own the article do you? Certainly not. RegardsDarrenss 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters_House author uses his own sites

I just want to mention, that user user:Potters_house is using his own personal links for evdience. The so called IP scam that people are accused of is not true. Why can the user have his own personal links on this article? As I mentioned before Nick has spend years slandering ex-members and now brings his attitude to this article. Why are the links to anti-Ross sites here as well? Should that information be listed on Ross's on wikipedia page? Rick Ross has nothing to do with the article, so why is it necessary <?> the sites aren't even neutral but are written for the purpose of defaming the indiviuals.

Can someone again look at http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ it is Nick's own private site and contains slanderous attacks against Ross and ex-members of the potters house. Currently it is being used as a reference and external link. The site contains no official independant webmaster and try looking for the name of the owners of the site? ThanksDarrenss 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove where any infomation if deemed false I will remove them myself. Like I said, we should mediate, but you continue to gnaw at old bones. Please state exactly where the infomation is false! Potters house 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick you are totally missing the point. There is one else on the planet that even makes these claims against so called internet IP scams, just you. Furthermore as I understand you were one of the ones that was fooled by it. This is what (removed) says happened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/message/8017 This is what Nick says happened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slamthedoor_frauds/

But no one can get an independant view of it because the sites are gone. Now WHY is it even relevant?? Please explain why? We are talking about 1 or 2 people. I've never been involved in any so called scam, 10 others I know haven't either. The news reporters covering potters house special reports haven't, newspaper reporters haven't, on the percentage of those who have left the fellowship what are we talking about? Just 1 or 2 people, Nick. Why is it relevant? Should the actions of 2 people be even mentioned? Nick this is not a potters house criticism issue just another one of your smear projects which has been successful for a while but contains no importance to support even a mention. Its totally irrelevant. I ask anyone please consider this, if I left the church and joined the mormons could you claim some statistic or percentage of ex-members have joined the mormon church because of just me? Certain not and the same is true with so called internet scams. Its not even important to make any news but Nick makes a big deal out of it.

This whole sentence is based on this accustion of Nick regarding this issue. "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet." Why does it get a mention? It is totally irrelevant to the subject. I hope I have illustrated this point. It might be true but there are 2 sides to this accusation and the other side is not even told, so why even mention it. I submit to remove the sentence completely.Darrenss 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the mediation? You are just revamping old issues here. I was not the one that exposed the IP scam on the internet, there were at least three others involved, I mearly state that it DID happen (which ALL parties admit to execpt you - being a newbee and not knowing the subject thouroughly) and also that I have been called a homosexual and claims have been made that I have left the church. You seem to be disassociating yourself with the Slam the Door members, but (removed), who is the main player behind the IP scandal runs the link you are promoting. The other link is to a group started by Neil Taylor who was exposed pretending to be my ex-girlfriend and also claiming that I had homo-erotic desire towards him (he said this under another username). You seem to deny that these things even happened, or that the groups are slanderous. You recently said that I had a boyfriend (refering to Tilman) and that you were only using Wikipedia to promote your slanderous links. I grow tired of repeating myself. I suppose people also deny that the holocaust happened, but you are the first to deny that the IP scandal NEVER happened. Stangly in the next breath you say that I was deceived by it and you give links? How can I be deceived by something that never happened? Potters house 03:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it even relevant? The language you use such as "scam" and "frauds" is silly. Did they break the law? What scam? What were they doing and what was the aim of the so called scam? Frauds? What did they try to gain illegally? They certainly didn't break any laws or even breach yahoo's code of conduct or pratice. But this isn't the place to conduct the trial of (removed) is it? Even if (removed) or an ex-member of the potters house break the law in any way, why is it relevant to the rest of the ex-members, the news articles, cult-awareness groups. Why is it relevant to the potters house? If (removed) went to your house and said "BOO" to your cat why does it affect the potters house? Is it news worthy? Certainly not.

Nick do you admit that your problems with (removed) or even myself is personal and doesn't directly relate to the potters house at all? You are a zealous member of the fellowship and in your zeal you have certainly provoked ex-members to anger haven't you? Now can I ask, if Nick you are on the yahoo group slandering me, can I not say that because you are abusive that is certainly proof the the potters house is abusive? If not why not? Because one person doesn't reflect upon a whole group, tribe, fellowship, nation. Get my point.

Now why is it relevant to mention your own personal attacks against (removed) as some facts to use relating to the potters house in general? Please answer the question.

This is the disputed sentence from "criticism of the church" regarding this issue: "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet." Darrenss 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The disputed sentence is an example of weasel words creeping in to the article. Such a sentence needs to be linked to a reputable source, not just an online chat room. If Potter's House has any official documentation online where this sort of thing is talked about then it should be linked and the sentence included. Without an external link the sentence should be removed. See WP:WEASEL --One Salient Oversight 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for checking. To my knowledge there is no published information the potters house "officials" have released regarding their position against ex-members or critics. If you don't mind me saying, should there be a criteria on "WHO" can make a qualifified statement as a representative of the potters house eg a spokesperson? Otherwise all we have is unqualified members of the church speaking on behalf of the entire (he says 1400 churches of 100,000 members) fellowship. The same goes for the "reference" websites used by Potters house. He has already said before that he threatened to invent a website to put up that would be the "truth" about Rick Ross and link them to the article. Such ideas should be viewed as being at the bottom end of the academic spectrum surely. This is what I believed has happened in his article on critics - [1]Darrenss 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please edit the changes. It is a little complicated for me to do. Thanks.Darrenss 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sentances and references links

These 2 sentances are irrelevant: "Potter's House advocates dismiss the critics' claims as unfounded. They suggest that critics are non-credible, small in number, and highly vocal. Rick Ross is a controversial figure himself and has attracted criticism.[14] [15] [16] [17]"

"Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet."

Also these links containing references are of little importance and relevance and should be deleted from the article itself.

12 ^ rickross.com about Christian fellowship churches

13 ^ A critical site exposing Rick Ross and his attack on fundamentalist Christians

14 ^ The Potter's Club's critique of Rick Ross

15 ^ Potter's House forums about Rick Ross

16 ^ Apologetics Index critique of Rick Ross

17 ^ Cult Awareness Network's critique of Rick Ross

18 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on allegations of 'puppeteering' by critics

19 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on multiple I.P scam

20 ^ Yahoo Group discussion on multiple I.P scam

Criticism of Rick Ross is irrelevant to the subject and the multiple ID scam is a smear project pushed by Potters house and contains no valid usage that it should directly relate to the Potters House. Please check this. I've asked the user for an explaination on how the so-called ID scam is relative to the issues and so far got no response.Darrenss 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, the Rick Ross issue needs to be addressed in the article, but probably in only a minor way. There should not be more than one external link to a critique of Ross. If people want to know more then they should go to the Rick Ross article, where all of the external links you mention should be available. --One Salient Oversight 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Darrenss 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checking the discussion page here, Rick Ross has already been a major topic of discussion. I'm happy if you drop Ross altogether. If you put Ross in than Nick will put anti-Ross links or statements. This is the history of the discussion. In the "LINKS" section of this page Nick said this:

"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 )

I there are plenty of professional critics of the potters house besides Ross. I suggested before using a current up to date site run by an independant group - http://www.firstplumbline.net/html/thepottershouse.html what's your thoughts? The Ross issue could go round the merry go-round forever.Darrenss 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the "dubious" comment as per wikipedia policy in relation to the sentences as regarding the issue as stated in the section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement ThanksDarrenss 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Potters House has inserted false information

In response to the criticism leveled by Enroth and Charisma magazine, User:Potters house has inserted a number of quotes by Wayman Mitchell that respond to this criticism.

The problem is simple - the quotes were completely fabricated.

The book "In Pursuit of Destiny" could not be found through any internet search of either its title or its ISBN number. Click here for the Google search of "In Pursuit of Destiny" + wayman and you will discover that the internet knows nothing of this book except for Wikipedia and associated websites. If you look on the google for the ISBN number 0-9699777-1-9 you get even less results, and only those from Wikipedia. A look through various book respositories from the Wikipedia ISBN searching meta page can be found here, sufficed to say that the book is unknown to internet book sellers and even the library of congress.

Secondly, and most stupidly, the date for the book's publication was given as 1996. Yet we are led to believe that this very book contains a quote in reference to a Charisma news report that occurred in 2002.

I will therefore be calling upon Administrators and those in power to ban User:Potters House as soon as possible. --One Salient Oversight 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

The book may exist. But the quotes are most definitely fabricated. --One Salient Oversight 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can evidence of the book's existence/quotes be produced here? Failing that the reference and accompanying ontent will need to be removed. Sfacets 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Books DOES exist and the quotes are direct. Also where I said "Mitchell commented on the criticism from Charisma News and CRI in a statement in his official biography" never alludes to the article written in 2002, but to previous dealing with the organisation. Please before you futher delete sections or make unfounded claims, do your homework. Even Darrenss will attest to the existance of the book and the quotes in it. Just because you hate the church and have a personal bias against Pentecostals, does not give you the right to make slanderous accustaions. The date of the book makes it clear to anyone that it was previous to 2002. In your hurry to defame the church, please get your facts straight. A simple 'sorry' would also be nice for saying I am I fraud! Potters house 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall I scan in the first few pages for you? Potters house 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Published in 1996 - Northstar Advertising 40 Bell Farm Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4M 5L3 Printed in Canada. Potters house 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're asking me to verify it? You must be joking. So what will you do Nick? Scan the book (which is unverified and unrecoverable through any internet search or online content) into your OWN site http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ and hope it gets accepted as legit. I've mentioned before that http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ is your own site where you draw facts from in the potters house article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Mitchell. How easy is it to "create" the facts you want to prove as being true by putting them on your own website and quoting yourself. Can someone check the waymanmitchell.com site and see that I'm telling the truth, judge for yourself.Darrenss 09:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there were several books that were released as "in house" stuff for the potters house members especially pastors. Maybe thats why it cannot be found on the net or through any distributor that is easily found. Working in the christian wholesale business myself I know it wouldn't be available as a general public "retail" item. It would be a hard to find category and be considered a "rare" book. Most certainly it would be "out of print" anyway. You definately won't find a copy through any normal means. Hope that helps. Darrenss 09:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, books like "An Open Door or" "Blueprint from Heaven" etc are not my works, so reguardless of my website status, the info is not mine. Secondly, the Bio is usually on sale at Peth Conference, along with, "We Can Take the Land", and others. Most people in our church have this book. I find it hard to believe that you have never heard of it, exspecially when you have mentioned it before in yahoo groups on Fri Sep 22, 2006: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/3809

I wish that you would 'contibute' to the article and not try to tear down. I forgive you for your dishonesty, and I hope all things work out for you. God Bless.

Eventually this book will be online, but until then One Salient Oversight needs to check his facts, and Darren needs to be a bit more helpful. Potters house 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't "does it exist" but the availibilty and access of that information. I said "in house" much like the "watchtower" publication the JW use. I should know the difference I do work in the field as you well know. How will it be made available exactly? You are going to do it yourself right? So far as I know that will not meet wikipedia standards. You can't just point to your own material as evidence, someone independant must "host" that information. Do you understand? This isn't a primary school project, people need factual verifiable sources, if you put that information up (on your own site) everyone still must "take your word for it" and we'd be back to square one again. Right? Can't you see how stupid this is? Darrenss 11:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really seeing that you quote from the book I assume you own it, therefore I see it that you are just being difficult. But that's fine, I am used to it. The book is freely available. Strange the Koorong bookstore where you work promotes Benny Hinn sell books by Tommy Tenny, Copeland and other heretic and yet you wonder why Mitchell's Bio isn’t mainstream enough to be sold by your organization. BTW the Watchtower is freely available in most parts of the world so I can't see what you are actually alluding to, except that you desire for people to think that the J.W.'s and CFM have some common grounds in the sale of this book. I don't know where you are going with all that, but just for the record the book is scanned here: http://www.fxau.com/Mitchell_1.JPG http://www.fxau.com/Mitchell_2.JPG Kevin Northcott has this on his site! I hope God blesses you abundantly Darren. Potters house 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Every discussion I have with you here, you seem to always attack me, or things I am involved in. Its not available at Kongrong because 1. Its not important 2. The writers are unknown 3. The publishing company is unknown. 4. It wouldn't sell. 5. No one really cares. 6. Potters house is so small in comparison to church groups that it won't warrant a mention. 7. The books are outdated.

No I don't have a copy. I don't know where I got that from where I quoted it on the yahoo group. Yahoo is not wikipedia. No one would be able to check whether I was right or not anyway. I could have said "Mitchell smokes big long cigars" and no one would be able to verify that anyway. See the point?Darrenss 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Anyhow I have started to scan the book in anyway. Thanks for the inspiration to do it, or else I probably wouldn't bother. http://www.waymanmitchell.com/In_Pursuit_Of_Destiny/

I am not atacking you, I just wonder about your motives sometimes. Anyway, today is a new day, Jesus forgave people and requires us to also so lets just shake hands forgive each other and move on! Cheers! Potters house 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly http://www.waymanmitchell.com/ is in violation to copyright laws. You don't own the rights that you can do anything you want to the book,neither does anyone else. Furthermore the book itself cannot be used as a reference if it cannot be reproduced in a public forum for sale.

Anyhow you need to realise there is a difference between a "print" company and a "publishing" company. I noticed you said this: ":::Published in 1996 - Northstar Advertising 40 Bell Farm Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4M 5L3 Printed in Canada."

This is a printing company I think. I couldn't find any website to verify it though. Can you produce the website so I can have a look?

Also there are differences in quality, rights and access to"printed" books than "published" retail books. 1.Quality control

2.Reviews from professionals for the public to see

3.Official vs unofficial Darrenss 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that infomation Darren, see it is not that hard to 'help' in Wikipedia! Potters house 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just copy a whole copyrighted book onto you website. I couldn't find anywhere on the net "Blueprint from heaven". But to copy it onto your site isn't going to make the quotes any more valid. Please acknowledge some laws apply in which you may be in breach of. It will not pass wikipedia policy. http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/postmaterials.htm Darrenss 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also just for the record, I don't manage or run the two yahoo groups exposing the IP scams. A guy from the US and Kevin Northcott do. Kev is a friend of mine, but in no way have I even told him to put ANY material up about the scam. He just felt compelled to do so. I have added posts to the groups and that is all. So to say that only I am saying that there was a scandle is false. Potters house 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo groups are such that cannot be used for quotes or proof. Even if someone else ran the site (Kev goes to your church anyway doesn't he?) there's no way to prove it either way. Please remove any reference to the so-called yahoo slammers scam. If a potters house "official" representative would make an "official" public statement regarding "slammers" and "scams" (Wayman Mitchell for example would be a good "official) than you can quote him. So far its been a few members like yourself causing trouble which hasn't got anything to do with the potters house in general. I will be checking over the next week to see if you find the right sources for this accusation, otherwise it will be removed completely.Darrenss 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you yourself are striving to include 2 yahoo groups, don't you think that your statements show a consistency in what you deem as worthy material to produce a neutral wikipedia article? Potters house 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I've not included any yahoo groups as statements, that is a lie. I have the group listed as ex-members of the potters house thats about all. I suggest you get your facts right.Darrenss 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But according to your own logic, how do we know for sure that they are ex members, I mean you seem to make out as if I am just making the whole thing up, but couldn't they also be doing the same, according to your conclusions? Or am I the only nasty person on the internet? Potters house 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable third party sources

There are very few third party reliable sources in the article, in fact several are not acceptable, such as the links to the Yahoo groups webpage. Please refer to Wp:RS and comment. Sfacets 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of my contributions to refs and citations are Wikipedia:Convenience links i.e. not my own work, but added to a site for quick reference. Like the previous debacle about the quotes from Mitchell and Charisma Magazine, it was assumed that I was making them up by User:One Salient Oversight and I was referred to be banned by him for fraud. However, if One Salient contacted his local Potter's House church in Newcastle and requested a copy of the book on loan, he would have realized that the quotes were genuine. I only have Wikipedia:Convenience links because of the suspicious claims made against me and the church such as that. If there is a conflict of interest, I know 10 people who will gladly host and edit a similar page that will not have my input, save the inclusion of scanned material from Potter's House literature and sermons. Potters house 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IP scams and internet accusations are irrelevant to Potters House

This topic has been brought up before and user:Potters_house did not comment on the discussion so he has no right to revert my revision. If there was any "IP scam" or some yahoo group fraud the original information has been deleted and the sites no longer exist. At any rate, there is no record anywhere by any Potters House offiicals that they were threatened by any type of yahoo scam or fraud. Therefore the only course of action is to delete any references until some reliable and independant sources can be sited. A reliable source must also have nothing to do with user:Potters_house as he is the only one making the accustion. If there was any "official" statement released by Potters House spokesperson (eg. Wayman Mitchell, Harold Warner, David Vicary, Nigel Brown) than the information is irrelevant until proven otherwise.

Therefore statements linked to this accusation will also be deleted immediately. Please state your case here or otherwise leave the article alone. Thank you.Darrenss 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz is based in the UK.

http://www.pottersclub.com/Rick_Ross.htm is owned by Kevin Nothcott

http://www.forumsau.com/ owned by Kevin Nothcott

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/130-rick-ross is Run by the apologeticsindex.org group

http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/dbase/bios/rross.html is run by Cult Awareness Network

So why do you continue to delete the links? For a new member of Wikipedia, you are showing strong bias. I strongly suggest that if you want you barrow pushed that you mediate. Potters house 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, NONE of the links he is deleting have anything to do with the IP scams. I can't figure out where you are coming from. Before you fruitlessly delete more links from the article, please seek mediation. Your sole purpose in being on Wikipedia is to vandalise this page. Your "demands" that I talk about I.P. scams etc have nothing to do with what you are deleting. I know all about the scams, so do about 100 other people, all except you Darren! I wonder if you understand that it is rather strange also that you side with known slanderers of which anyone can see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/1

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/2

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/5

(removed) who runs Escape from the Fellowship, which you are trying to get linked to here, runs that site. He also said on another group;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/4252

You need to spend some time looking into the matter before you comment on it. Potters house 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not at all tried to get http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Escape_from_the_Fellowship/ linked to the article as "evidence" to be a "reference" from the main article but you are trying to do just that, do you see the difference? See my user page states "talk with ex-members". At any rate the references to "IP SCAM" will be deleted unless you have "official" comments from fellowship "spokespeople" (eg.those that are in commmand or in high positions, not yourself or your friends). Also ALL yahoo groups (including mine and yours) will NOT be displayed on the main article at all. So you agree with those conditions?

Secondly the whole Rick Ross issue should be addressed as well. So far you have been a major pain on both this article and Rick Ross's article as well. At any rate this article is not the place for you to launch your attack against Rick Ross. So I will remove all "your" sites you want to use against Mr Ross (references) and we will limit Ross criticisms to one site only. You have already shown you intend to "invent" a site to slander Mr Ross, so I don't think it is right for you to continue your attacks against him in this article. Please go to Ross's article for your comments and views to be included there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29

Don't go accusing me of vandelism, I'm trying to work this out with you. Don't revert either untill you can show better evidence on this subject, if you want mediation go ahead but I'm deleting "IP SCAMS" and ROSS slander until mediation arrives. Thank you.Darrenss 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/message/1 this yahoo group is a different one from the SCAM or IP FRAUD? What are you trying to prove exactly? It has nothing to do with the Potters House and irrelevant to the article. Darrenss 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so now you are demanding that I agree with you, what a joke! I can't see exactly what your case is, you seem to be confused. If you want to contine lets mediate (as I have said from the beginning and over 20 times now), that is Wiki policy. You have got to make a discision. I am not interested in what you think about Ross, but Ross is an avid critic of the fellowship, thus it is helpful for people to understand why a Potter's House member would reject his claims. Also you seem to have totally missed my last post and went and deleted links that you have no idea about and still claim they are to do with the IP scam, then you claim that I am not being co-operative. Reguarding the pottershouseclub group run by (removed), would you not agree that it is soley a slander group - thus (removed) who runs Escape from the fellowship is a slanderer. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, you may need professional help! Potters house 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not agree to the "IP SCAM" charges as being relevant to the article. It has nothing to do with the Potters House. Furthermore I raised the point earlier that much criticism comes from ex-members, I'm glad now you agree with me on that. Its not just (removed) but there must be about 6 yahoo groups set up by ex-members, so I'm glad now you are admiting your error. There is no reason however to single (removed) out though, you have personally atacked the man for years. That is an issue between you and him, not the potters house in general. Again, produce an independant article not written by yourself or your friends on the "SLAMMERS". The potters house aren't even aware such a title exist but you have invented it all by yourself. Again thats your own personal problem nothing to do with the potters house. Cite some "official" news released by Wayman Mitchell or Harold Warner on the "slammers" not your own personal sites which you yourself have written and given as a reference. As for Rick Ross criticisms should be keep to a minimum as was already discussed earilier but you refused to join the conversation then.

I agree to mediation sure but I will continue to delete irrelevant material as I believe it is.Darrenss 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Slam the Door was the most vocal group on the internet against the Potter's house. The people who most frequently posted there have been exposed as liars and slanderers. This DOES effect the image of the church. The people who frequenly posted there were busted for using multiple usernames to deceive people and to also boost the numbers in their group to 900. You obviously have no idea what happened and even deny that it ever happened. Like I said, I have never met thatsdoctor2u and he runs a group all about it. Also Yadayada who posted on many groups. The 6 or so groups that are anti CFM are the same people who were busted having false names and false CFM group. If you think that that is exposing a church oor that it is ok to slander people Darren you need to check yourself. (removed) claims Mitchell has whores, that I am a homosexual, and basically slanders anyone asociated with CFM. YOU have a personal agaenda. Just because you dislike CFM because you have become a Calvinist doesn't give you the right to slander me or the church. (removed) is a KNOWN slanderer. He admits to it. YOU are saying that he is inocent, and also that the IP scam is not newsworthy. I think I will make a new page all about it, because I am sick of people coveing up things like this. You have an agenda. You are not interested in building Wikipedia but in slandering the Potter's House. You uave publicaly stated your hatred for me in another group. I forgive you, but I hope you stop you deletion spree before you are banned, because you could have something to contribute to wikipedia, if you stopped showing bias. Potters house 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is all your opinion and not proven as fact. Please stick to verifiable facts and not your opinion. Again you are not the spokesperson for the fellowship, show me an official document or news on the subject released by Wayman Mitchell or Warner, Vicary, Brown. Otherwise all you have is your opinion which is not to be accepted as fact. As I said before I'm happy to drop any references to Yahoo groups and IP scams, which will be my main point upon mediation. Your choice. Why you go on about it is beyond me?? Because someone teased you it should be mentioned on wikipedia on the potters house article which has no direct reference with you in particular?? Hardly news worthy.Darrenss 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW can you state for the record whether or not the site the frauds were operating on still exists? Because if it doesn't you don't have a way for people to follow the evidence anyway. How were they exposed? Did they break the law? Did it make national news? Were the "frauds" charged with some crime and fined? What was the official statement from the fellowship regarding the "great internet scam"?? I'd say the charges of "SCAM" and "FRAUD" are highly exaggerated and it didn't have anything to do with the potters house in general. Just a practical joke that you yourself fell for, not exactly an international world-wide conspiracy bearing criminal record and thousand dollar fines. Did I mention user:Potters_house was actually involved and was fooled by the so called scam. It's irrelevant to the Potters house mate so give it a rest.Darrenss 08:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Buy you comments you prove that you have no idea what happened, unless you are just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la la - I am not listening - la la la la."

For the record (which is described in detail in the mediation and in previous discussions) "Slam the Door" was shut down after (removed) was shown that all the IP's had been exposed, thus everyones name, address, and personal details were known. (removed) was found to be running "the doorcfc" a supposedly Pro - Potter's House yahoo group in which he pretended to be many people. He also would pretend to be church members, pretend to backslide after a while and then leave the church for certain reasons, all with other users (all himself) trying to give advice etc. It was pretty sick stuff really, but the clincher was Neil Taylor who pretended to be my ex-girlfriend and said many slanderous things pretending to known to me, he also deceived his daughter and persuaded her to leave the church by using different people on the crackedpots yahoo group which were all himself. Many examples show both (removed) and Neil being different personalities in which they try to deceive people. Most “Slam the Door” people were also scammed. I have ALL the posts in my email account and have compiled some of the worst ones just in case. I think the time has come for a full expose' on the entire episode, whether it is on wiki or not is a non issue. I will demonstrate their wickedness. The slam the door group was also previously linked to until the fiasco. Thus the inclusion of a link that explained what happened.

I suppose then you wouldn't mind if I appeared on a yahoo group as you mother saying all sorts of diabolical things about your homosexuality and how you are a jerk and no good etc. I had to go to great lengths to prove that (She) Neil wasn't my ex. If you think that sort of behavior is not slanderous and the whole thing is not a scam, then I wonder if you have any morality left! You claim to be a Christian and yet support these people? What a joke! Potters house 12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vadalising the article. It does not belong to you and must remain in a NPOV. I have reported you for unruly behavior.Darrenss 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is its your own problem and nothing to do with the Potters House, if someone teased you thats not actual threaten the Potters House in general. There was no SCAM or FRAUD, until you demonstrate actual evidence of illegal behavior threatening the Potters House it is nothing more than your own opinion. Do not vandalise this article, it does not belong to you but is by the co-operation of many editors.Darrenss 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said many times, lets mediate! Your tit for tat attitude is going nowhere. Also as I stated before, you are deleting links that have nothing to do with any IP scams, you don't even know what you are doing. Potters house 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please discuss and try to find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest this protection, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd say thats a good idea.Darrenss 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the section "Church doctrine", in the second paragraph, there is a sentence in the middle:

Doctrinally evangelical, pretribulationist, and strongly sola scriptura.

Could someone please change the "evangelical" link to be: evangelical

Edit reason: Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!

I realise that the sentence isn't a grammatically correct sentence, and I guess the entire paragraph may be rewritten at some point to flow a little better. But if we can at least get the wikilink fixed, that's a start.

Thanks -- Paddles ^T_C 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect this page, so everyone can edit it again. If the edit wars recommence, it will end up protected again. CMummert · talk 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I've made my change (and also closed a couple of unclosed tags from earlier in the talk page, and made a couple of style edits on the article itself. Paddles ^T_C 13:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Third party

I have made some changes to this article, specifically to the Criticisms section. First off, let me say that I have never been involved in the Potter's House, and don't know anyone who has. My edits come as a third party observer, and I hope that has helped me to see things with a more neutral perspective.

Onto the changes. First off, there were a handful of "sources" which simply do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Attribution. For instance, you absolutely cannot cite web forums as a source. They can be linked to from an External Links section, but they are not a reliable source and simply cannot be used in the manner they were being used. The "(new) Cult Awareness Network" is also not a reliable source. It has been taken by Scientologists ever since the (old) Cult Awareness Network went bankrupt and was bought out in 1994.

Secondly, a lot of the focus seemed to be centered on Rick Ross, and the fact that he has archived old news articles on his site, with "defenders" of the movement posting links to (generally unreliable) sources attempting to discredit him. Rick Ross can be criticized, but only because he has done more than simply list newspaper articles on his website. As you will see from the sources I've added to the section, he has publicly (in newspaper articles, on Geraldo's television show, and on 48 Hours) criticized the group, calling it "destructive" and so forth. In response to his remarks, Wayman Mitchell responded, denying the charges and calling Ross a "high paid mercenary." All of these charges by Ross and responses by Mitchell are sourcable because they were made in fact-checked, reliable sources and so (unlike the previous forum links) they can be included. From the perspective of either a critic or current attender of the group, it is a lot more credible (and in line with Wikipedia policy) to lay out criticism of Potter's House or its critics in this manner, rather than including dubious sources.

Now, as far as the newspaper articles Ross has achived: these are in no way to be connected or criticized for the same reason's Rick Ross himself has been criticized. Ross did not write the articles, he merely archived them on his website. While you can question his motivation for archiving them, it's of little importance to this article. I have cited several of the articles he's archived, but the fact that they are archived on his website has no bearing on the validity of the articles themselves. He was in no way responsible for publishing and/or fact-checking them. They could be archived anywhere and it wouldn't matter. The source for the newspaper articles is not Rick Ross' website, it is the newspapers themselves, and newspapers are abolustely considered a Reliable Source.

Finally, let me just say.. Wow, that's quite the flame war that's occurred here! I hope my perspective as an outsider is welcome and we don't end up in the middle of another one. :) Cheers.

Xanthius 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A correction to my last message, I was wrong about being able to include links to forums in the external links section. It's generally Wikipedia policy to avoid linking to forums and blogs altogether. (See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.) Xanthius 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the article has taken a turn for the better. It has been exhausting to try and keep things tidy when at every turn people have not only ignored Wiki policy but have showed deliberate bias. Well done. Potters house 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Links vandelism and church doctrine

This is a wikipedia article not an exhaustive list of links to churches. The links I provided have links within themselves such as individual church locations. If people want to find where the churches are they should go to those links. Wikipedia is not here to supply a directory but to provide people with accurate information on the particular subject from a NPOV.

Furthermore I added the CFM statement of faith link so why delete that since it should be there more than others. I added the statement in church doctrine "the church teaches salvation can be lost because of sin", a statement such as this is found on the CFM statement of faith page, I suggest you read it before vandelising the article; Such a statement is very important for people to realise and should be stated. I added firstplumbline which is a professionally run apologetics site containing researched information on the Potters House the same as Rick Ross has.

Refrain from vandelising this article, especially since you are a banned user (Potters House - Nick Sayers) operating under an IP address.Darrenss 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW - This same banned user (Potters House - Nick Sayers) vandelised my user and talk page more than 20 times (!!) last month. Who is the vandel? Darrenss 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Church directory

The church directory was there because people like Darren who are soly on wikipedia to smear the Potter's House, kept putting {fact} net to how many churches there were. I had to heep showing them that if they simply couunted the number of churches in the list they would know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.227.185 (talk • contribs).

Bad spelling aside, WP:NOT#DIR - which is official Wikipedia policy - gives good reason for removing what was a directory of links on the page. The above editor is an anon IP which has admitted to being the user behind banned account Potters house (admitted in this diff), who was not surprisingly banned for amongst other things POV pushing in relation to an entity which they have an admitted significant conflict of interest with. Enough said. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, making a list of the known websites of churches does not provide verifiable backup for the number of churches, it just provides a big directory of websites. To provide verification for the number of churches you need a previously published source that actually looks at the number of churches, not simply a listing of websites. Otherwise you are using original research that assumes a) the listing in our article is complete and accurate, and b) all churches have individual websites. This is a poor reason to fill the article up with links in violation of policy. If there are no previously published, reliable claims about how many churches there are then it's not really information that Wikipedia should be covering. -- SiobhanHansa 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

External link replaced

As I stated before Pottershouseclub is not an official CFM site as it contains no relevant material that provides further reading/information on the topic. I replaced this with the world CFM offical statement of faith page, which would be much more useful and is enforced throughout the CFM churches under Wayman Mitchell's authority.Darrenss 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain??

Why do my edits get reverted as vandelism?? I took hours of my time to find good sources and references. Don't revert back because you don't like it explain your problem and we can discuss it first. You can't remove well sourced material and replace it with no sources and call it vandelism??Darrenss 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I'll let that go but FYI Firstplumbline does not violate copyright law. There are no copyright or royalties on sermons that Potters House have released for FREE public download or ones that were received during conferences/revivals etc. These sermons are released to the public and placing them on any website would not infringe any copyright law , neither does it require permission from the source. As this type of info is part of my job to know, I can make a qualified judgement on the matter. Editing as an IP address to avoid 3 rv's rule is at the very minimum suspicious.Darrenss 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased external links

It seems strange that the AOG page has many many links and yet this page only has a few and most are negative. I think that with the previous debacle concerning subject matter on this page that all links good and bad should be permitted thus allowing a non biased POV for the reader. Sapienz 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A concern over balance is reasonable, but the answer isn't to open the article up to unfettered POV in both directions - We should try to provide a balanced article reflecting the significant POVs of experts in the field, not a directory of links to biased sites. One of the problems with the links here in the past has been that they haven't really been to sites that look at Potters House, they've simply been to Potters House sites, providing no real additional insight into the organization over the main Potters House site, and completely failing to provide critical analysis. These sorts of links aren't really encyclopedic.

We might be able to develop a better article and meet your concerns of bias by considering instead: Are there missing external links (or, better yet, sources) that are positive and look at/report on/analyze Potter's House? What positive information is missing from the article? Are the negative sites of high quality and (criticism by those they target notwithstanding) generally considered reliable for the type of information they present? -- SiobhanHansa 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Equipt.org Critics section

I think there is a equipt.org article on the Potter's House but I'm not sure where it is. The same like article are on Cult help and Believersweb. You are welcome to add any of these if you want.Darrenss 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstplumbline

Added this quality External Link, as it provides current and up to date information on an ongoing basis. Much of the critics sections are older or have not been updated. Firstplumbline does not violate any copyright laws and is run by a professional team from the UK. Do not delete this quality link unless there is more than good reason to. Thank you.Darrenss 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Potter's House sermons are under copyright as far as I can see. Therefore the group firstplumbline is preforming illegal duplication of those tracks. Unless proven otherwise the link should go. Sapienz 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter's House DO NOT copyright their sermons. They have PUBLIC sermon downloads free on the internet with no copyright on them. I suggest you find out what the law is before you claim to know it.

Potter's House by law have to state clearly their copyright on their download pages and they have not. Neither have they bought any rights to prohibit duplication. eg-

http://www.100psi.com/media_downloads_i.html

http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Audio_Sermons.htm (This link must be in major violation in the audio then ??)

http://www.pottershouse.co.uk/resources/Audio-sermons.htm

http://www.pottershouse.com/downloads.asp

So since your information is incorrect and you've not raised any other issue I will place the link back. Thanks anyway.Darrenss 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

People do not have to assert copyright. Under the Berne Convention (now incorporated into the TRIPS agreement) material is automatically copyrighted at creation. Although I notice one of the Potter's House links you provide above does in fact include a copyright statement. Allowing users to download a sermon does not mean the user has the right to redistribute (i.e. make copies - which is what copyright is essentially about). Potter's House would need to release the material into the public domain or under an appropriate license for other people to be able to redistribute them on their own website. -- SiobhanHansa 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The first link you provided is http://www.100psi.com/ which clearly states:

All other unauthorized duplication or electronic transmission is a violation of copyright and other applicable laws. Also © Copyright 2007-2008 - The Potters House, Walthamstow. All Rights Reserved. is on the botton of the uk page. Sapienz 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Straight posting of links to the sermons is also inappropriate from an NPOV perspective - We are an encyclopedia, and this article should provide independent and critical analysis of its subject. Promoting Potter's House message is not a part of a good article. Independent critical analysis (and not hatchet jobs or puff pieces) could be appropriate, but straight linking is not encyclopedic. -- SiobhanHansa 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan is right we better remove all links to inappropriate areas such as sermons. Keep the article NPOV. Good point I must of overlooked that all rights reserved. I thought Potter's House sermons were public domain since they are not developed for commericial use. I'll have to look into that further. All the best.Darrenss 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Under the Copyright law/fair use the Firstplumbline has a disclaimer at the bottom addressing the copyright issue. If you read the US copyright law link I supplied this site is entilted to place the material there without infringing any copyright law. I will place that link back there as per discussed previously. Thank you, all the best.Darrenss 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting up a disclaimer is irrelevant really. It's whether or not they are actually using the link under fair use (which they may be - I've only taken the briefest look at the site). -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case I followed that up and believe they are not in violation of copy due to "fair use" for the purpose of news, criticism, reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In the case of the Potter's House sermons (which was the actual subject of protest), only small clips are used for the purpose of the above mentioned criteria. However the sermon clips are just a fraction of the material they are presenting anyway, which I think is by the far best external link on criticism for this article. I'm just not sure why its a problem, if copy isn't the real issue what is? Darrenss 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless of a disclaimer the Audios are under Copyright - until made public domain, the link should be removed - perhaps contact the Church itself and see if you can get official permission? Sapienz 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Read what is written ok. The disclaimer is meaningless the LAW is what is being followed, regardless of what the disclaimer says (we know that already). You didn't read that under "FAIR USE" they DO NOT break copyright laws, for the purpose of news, criticism, teaching, scholarship, reseach etc they are permitted to have material on their website and NOT violate copyright law. It is not my problem to explain the law, do your own research BUT don't delete things if you aren't sure what you are doing or how the copy law works. The real reason is you don't like that link because they have current material and thorough research and you don't want anyone to know about it or to read the research themselves because you are a member of the Potter's House church. Isn't that true Nick??Darrenss 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For more information on exceptions to copyright you'll find information here. I hope that settles the issue. Thanks.Darrenss 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a complete aside, what other sites do or do not do with copyright is not Wikipedia's business - if they are in violation, they get sued, not ourselves, and our fair use policies are in place to protect Wikipedia. Copyright is only an issue if material from a site is republished here - see Wikipedia's copyright policies for details. I have no opinion about the inclusion or non-inclusion of the link, but could see that this debate is on a matter which is essentially irrelevant. Orderinchaos 04:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Our guidelines and policy both specifically require us to not link to sites that violate copyright. But we are not supposed to be copyright police - we don't need every site that uses copyrighted content in a way that seems to reasonably constitute fair use to have won a court victory before we link to it. -- SiobhanHansa 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)