Talk:John W. Ratcliff

Liberal in what sense?

User:Urbie has twice deleted the qualifier "politically" in the following sentence:

Ratcliff began AARM as a reaction to the suspension of several users in the moderated CARM forums, which he interpreted as systematic exclusion of atheists and politically liberal Christians.

User:Hyperbole added the word to distinguish between theologically liberal Christians and politically liberal Christians. I think it needs one qualifier (or both, if applicable). What is correct? --Flex 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct answer is "both," although that may be difficult to source. --Hyperbole 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You converted it from theological to political liberalism. Have you changed your mind? Regarding sourcing: Well, it's not sourced anyway. If it turns out to be controversial (which I doubt) and no reliable source can be found to substantiate it, I'd suggest it be deleted. In the meantime, I'll just add both qualifications. --Flex 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I made that conversion because I felt the CARM administration was more concerned with liberal politics than liberal theology, but I may have been mistaken. I think your recent edit is probably the best solution. --Hyperbole 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Major copyedit

I did a major overhaul of the page, and added some references. I removed some elements which I didn't feel were adequately sourced -- if better sources are available though, please feel free to add that information back in. --Elonka 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been basically a consensus that AARM is notable both to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and to John W. Ratcliff, but that it more properly attaches to Ratcliff. Removing all that content is probably not for the best... I went through and condensed it a couple months ago, but it should exist to some extent. --Hyperbole 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What sources are we using to confirm that AARM is one of Ratcliff's primary areas of notability, and should therefore be mentioned in the lead paragraph? I'd never heard of his association with it, until I saw the Wikipedia article. Based on all the research that I've done, he's primarily known as a game developer. --Elonka 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Works

I added a list of works to this article, which were just reverted out of hand. What's going on here? There appears to be some sort of agenda about presenting more info in this article about Ratcliff's personal religious beliefs, and very little about his actual work as a game developer. --Elonka 03:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you add the list without removing the other info? I think a whole other article was merged in here, on AARM, and deleting that isn't good either. There's room for both. -Will Beback · † · 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I see an edit war going on right now, but neither side seems to have sources for their version. Could you please provide some sort of references to show where you're getting this information? Thanks, Elonka 07:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted without reading this, but regardless of the source in question, 75.3.7.61's edit summary does seem to display a misunderstanding of CARM. Now, as far as getting a source, my understanding from past discussions was that there were no true blue reliable sources for this since it all took place on discussion forums (for what it's worth, I am an uninvolved party, and my investigations of CARM's statements on the matter as well as postings on the CARM/AARM forums seem to confirm the text in dispute here). --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that there are strong feelings about this, but if there are no reliable sources, I would recommend removing the information entirely. --Elonka 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have strong feeling about this (indeed, I was the one who added the original {{fact}} tags), and considering that Ratcliff no longer runs the board, I agree that this should be redacted further. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 11:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John W. Ratcliff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031010142407/http://planetside.stratics.com/content/dev/profiles.shtml to http://planetside.stratics.com/content/dev/profiles.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)