Content deleted Content added
→Controversies: minor edit |
|||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=Start|priority=|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Martin, Walter}}▼
{{notaforum|personal beliefs, [[apologetics]], or [[polemic]]s}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=Start|importance=|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=}}▼
▲{{
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}
▲{{WikiProject Christianity
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}}
}}
==Untitled==
The logic of this statement defies objectivity:
Line 89 ⟶ 95:
C. Fred: The audios the Morgans (graftedin73) claim are "new" have long been a part of the Walter Martin Resource Library. Darlene Martin, the widow of Dr. Walter Martin, is not concerned with the content of the tapes, only with the Morgans' infringement on her copyright. The Morgans were asked privately not to post these audios, and they posted them. They were asked to take these audios down and they refused to do so. They were asked by Mrs. Martin's attorneys to stop infringing on her copyright, and they refused to comply. We respectfully request that Wikipedia remove any quotes from the NMCC class audios.--Jill M. Rische, eldest daughter of Walter Martin and agent for Darlene Martin.
C.Fred: Darlene Martin does not own the copyrights to the material posted, as Jill Rische claims. We received a letter from Darlene's attorney, but their assertions of ownership have never been litigated in a court of law. Also, they have not provided one shred of evidence to support their claim of transference of Copyright Ownership from CRI, to Darlene Martin. We have asked to see their evidence. They have yet to provide it. The material we have is clearly copyrighted by Christian Research Institute (CRI). Additionally, the information we posted is 'new' as it has never been posted online before. If indeed the Risches have copies of the material as they claim, then they have supressed important information. This is their choice, but they should not be allowed to suppress our choice to make the material available for review. Rick Morgan, Dr. martin's Son-in-law.[[User:GraftedIn73|GraftedIn73]] ([[User talk:GraftedIn73|talk]]) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:The Controversies section has existed for quite some time. During this time, my wife, one of Dr. Martin's daughters, and I have never publically commented, as we have had no first hand, non POV information to contribute. That changed when we were sent over 600 cassette tapes that were stolen from Christian Research Institute over 15 years ago. 7 of those tapes were clearly marked where Dr. Martin made comments about, expressed his opinion of, and announced his plans for Hank Hanegraaff. Our decision to make MP3s of these tapes available publically, was driven by the belief that Dr, Martin ought to be allowed to speak publically for himself, on this controversial matter. Our opinions of his words are not the point we are trying to promote. We are attempting to promote HIS words, so that any individual, who is interested, may include that material in their own examination of the evidence. To publically criticize Hank Hanegraaff is one thing. To repeatedly suppress Dr. Martin's own words, and to attempt to keep them out of the public discourse is wrong. My edits have only been made to restore the text I added to the original article section. My additions did not change a single word of the existing text. My additional words clarified for the record that the entire Martin family has not been in opposition to Hank's leadership of CRI. We have not attempted to bloat this article with the reasons why we support Hank. We have simply tried to briefly and succinctly correct the record, and make the new information available for consideration. Rick Morgan -- [[User:GraftedIn73|GraftedIn73]] ([[User talk:GraftedIn73|talk]]) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Line 99 ⟶ 107:
Hi C.Fred, In response to your previous request, I have posted my explanations here. Jill Rische has failed to comply with your request, and is once again deleting my text from the Controversies section of the article. Her first activity was under the name 05nitram, a play on Martin50. Now she is removing my texts under the name TruthBringsLight, an odd choice of names since she has only attempted to shroud this article in darkness by continually removing my additions that point to Dr. Martin's own words on the subject. I have removed exactly 0 of her text, including the highly POV paragraph that attempts to discredit our WalterMartinJude3 site. I am asking Wikipedia's help to stop this sabotage of my contributions. Thanks! [[User:GraftedIn73|GraftedIn73]] ([[User talk:GraftedIn73|talk]]) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:C. Fred: The audios the Morgans (graftedin73) claim are "new" have long been a part of the Walter Martin Resource Library. Darlene Martin, the widow of Dr. Walter Martin, is not concerned with the content of the tapes, only with the Morgans' infringement on her copyright. The Morgans were asked privately not to post these audios, and they posted them. They were asked to take these audios down and they refused to do so. They were asked by Mrs. Martin's attorneys to stop infringing on her copyright, and they refused to comply. We respectfully request that Wikipedia remove any quotes from the NMCC class audios.--Jill M. Rische, eldest daughter of Walter Martin and legal agent for Darlene Martin. (My Wikipedia usernames have never been nitram05 or Martin50). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.169.211.244|209.169.211.244]] ([[User talk:209.169.211.244|talk]]) 06:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Can you be more specific about which quotations do not comply with the guidelines for [[WP:Non-free content|non-free content]]? The only direct quotation I see in the controversies section is a scant four words. Paraphrasing with attribution is acceptable use of the material as a secondary source. Additionally, as there is no link in the reference citation, there's no issue with a link pointing to an infringing site in the reference tag. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:::C.Fred: Darlene Martin does not own the copyrights to the material posted, as Jill Rische claims. We received a letter from Darlene's attorney, but their assertions of ownership have never been litigated in a court of law. Also, they have not provided one shred of evidence to support their claim of transference of Copyright Ownership from CRI, to Darlene Martin. We have asked to see their evidence. They have yet to provide it. The material we have is clearly copyrighted by Christian Research Institute (CRI). Additionally, the information we posted is 'new' as it has never been posted online before. If indeed the Risches have copies of the material as they claim, then they have supressed important information. This is their choice, but they should not be allowed to suppress our choice to make the material available for review. Rick Morgan, Dr. martin's Son-in-law.[[User:GraftedIn73|GraftedIn73]] ([[User talk:GraftedIn73|talk]]) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
===POV===
I have removed most of the material from the controversies section. There was not one independent source. [[User:Basileias|Basileias]] ([[User talk:Basileias|talk]]) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding POV, the article itself reads like someone defending their favorite cult leader and the talk section doesn't dissuade me from that notion. While there are many neutral things supported as facts, the controversies section is way out of hand with over the top defenses. It just makes the accusers look justified. If you really care, note the controversies and a calm counterpoint and leave it at that. [[Special:Contributions/68.106.235.38|68.106.235.38]] ([[User talk:68.106.235.38|talk]]) 01:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
== Vandalism by Cultists ==
It must be noted that the controversies section has been subject to vandalism- mostly by LDS members- for some time, lacking sources to back up what they say, often simply quoting other Mormons. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts. Not personal attacks on deceased individuals who are not here to defend themselves.
The facts are simple:
*Dr. Martin completed all his coursework at New York University.
*Dr. Martin spent much time teaching in churches (up to three times a week not including his own local bible class).
*Dr. Marin decided to submit his dissertation to CCU, a school which offered part-time studies for those who have other commitments.
*CCU was given accreditation by the sate of Californaia before Dr. Martin began his work. Which means his doctorate is valid. Simple.
*CCU was given national accreditation by the the Distance Education and Training Council which investigated CCU and concluded that its state accreditation was of a high standard and thus awarded national recognition. And that ALL of the courses it had offered were valid courses despite the claims of the vandal 50.39.181.30 (who said it was not accredited to offer a Comparative Religions course) who provided NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER.
Two alternative arguments are presented by Cultists are as follows. CCU was a degree mill thus Marin's doctorate was not valid. This is simply ignoring the facts that it was accredited by the state and that it was investigated as part of a national study, who concluded the degrees awarded were of the same standard as nationally accredited schools.
The other argument is that CCU was not nationally accredited therefore his doctorate is invalid. The article makes clear that CCU was awarded national accreditation after his degree was awarded however to say that the state accreditation is insufficient to offer a valid doctorate is nonsense since most institutions rely on regional accreditation, especially since DETC disagrees with you. Furthermore don't these people realise that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago are all non-nationally accredited schools!
If you went to a high school accredited by California and graduated, do you have a valid qualification? Of course you do. No cultist would say you did'nt but since it has to do with a person whose work has lead to many cultists leaving their organisation, only then do they attack it. Clear Cultic mindset. Maybe some of these people should read >(Janice M. Karlen, Accreditation and Assessment in Distance Learning, Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, Volume 1, Issue 4, Fall 2003 (November 2003). "Most institutions rely upon one of the eight regional accreditation organizations for their accreditation status.")<
To fail to provide the facts above, only providing partial information (That CCU was not nationally accredited at the time of the degree, btw neither was Harvard) is simply dishonest and is merely an attempt to undermine his work. If you want to do that then fine, mislead people but don't do it on wikipedia. Do it on your Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Christian science or Scientology website.
[[User:Kurioslesouschristos|Kurioslesouschristos]] ([[User talk:Kurioslesouschristos|talk]]) 09:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
**** *****
Some corrections and explanations.
California did not accredit California Coast University in 1974. California approved all of the academic content and all of the degree programs at CCU<ref> Bill Honig, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 26 February 1986 </ref>, in a state agency that discontinued operation in 2011, and was replaced by a new agency that has also given full institutional state approval to CCU. State approval is the world wide standard for education outside of the USA and a small number of other countries that fell under USA influence. Accrediting is a different category than state approval, and carries no legal authority except when and where state law is applied to it. California Department of Education issued a detailed explanation in writing about the legal and academic status of CCU<ref> California Education Code Section 94310(b) </ref> to any one who requested it, stating that CCU had full institutional approval, also the degrees were on equal legal standing with any accredited degrees that had met California requirements<ref> California Education Code 94336 </ref>, for example specialized professional accreditation or full institutional accreditation. Not all accredited degrees were legal or recognized in California<ref> California Education Code 94310(a) </ref>, as late as 1986, for example degrees from partially accredited institutions, and those with provisional accreditation that had not met additional requirements.
Doctor [[John Bear]] gave favorable reference to California Coast University in 1982<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bear|first1=John|title=Bear's Guide To Non-Traditional College Degrees - How To Get The Degree You Want|date=1982|publisher=10 Speed Press|location=Berkeley|page=87}}</ref> and 1984 at a time Doctor Bear was associated with a competing nontraditional university [[Columbia Pacific University]] which eventually lost it's state approval and was closed by California Court in 2000<ref>{{cite web|title=California Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Columbia Pacific University's Approval to Operate|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070520155106/http://www.bppve.ca.gov/press_releases/cpuweb_dec2000.htm}}</ref>. The link to [[Columbia Pacific University|CPU]] gives useful insight to how state approval might be lost or gained, and how it differs from accreditation. [[User:Astrojed|Astrojed]] ([[User talk:Astrojed|talk]]) 02:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
**** *****
13 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
There is doubt about the area of specialization for the PhD degree. CCU does not give out personal information without a signed authorization. An unsubstantiated claim has been published that the doctorate was in comparative religion. Other people have not claimed to have that type of degree from CCU, where the four schools publicized at the time were Education, Psychology, Business, and Engineering (Management Option). The question remains unanswered, with speculation on other web sites that Education might have been the topic of the PhD degree, also other CCU graduates do not necessarily share Walter Ralston Martin's opinions about Mormons. Doctor Lee W. Ralston was Dean of the Education school at CCU, and a well known educator in California. Other references are few and unreliable for Wikipedia standards. Much of the controversy occurred after Lee Ralston died. California Laws were changing and the future of CCU was in doubt. National Accreditation of CCU changed the controversy making it more specific to Walter Ralston Martin and less about legitimacy of CCU. [[User:Astrojed|Astrojed]] ([[User talk:Astrojed|talk]]) 02:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Walter Martin.jpg|Walter Martin.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-11-30T03:39:21.606441 | Walter Martin.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walter Martin.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 03:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
| |||