Talk:Chuck Missler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missler and ties to militia movements[edit]

Sentence deleted from article without comment. I will add it back and look for discussion on talk page.

Can we add the below sentence to this article. We can use the writing or Richard Abanes for a start to support this. "Missler through his newsletters became a conduit between conservative evangelicals and the anti-government, militia activists, some of whom were white supremacist."

Missler talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter on youTube[edit]

This link is to a video - supposedly of Missler - talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter. Peanut Butter First, he is disputing evolution. Unfortunately for him, the origin of life is not addressed by the Theory of Natural Selection, which is what is generally meant by the word "evolution." Second, I don't believe that there are any theories on the origin of life that state that anything living can be synthesized from peanut butter whether you call it "Matter" or not. This is simply rubbish. It does not rise to the level of a point of view, neutral or not, because ignorance is just not a point of view. If it were, Wikipedia wouldn't have editors. b_calder 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So add a section discussion the video, criticisms, etc. etc. If the man is dead wrong and foolish as he obviously is, then just back it up with a section and VIOLA, no problem. I think the video deserves a section talking about it. --OMG LAZERS 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be free to discuss it. But the OP is dead wrong on spontaneous generation not being part of the greater Theory of Evolution. Well it is, it's just not in Darwin's book. It still is chemical evolution. Missler's argument is that all chemicals required for life would be present in peanut butter, yet no spontaneous generation or abiogenesis does take place. --41.150.173.150 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. It's such a minor thing, a passing meme that will be forgotten in a couple of weeks. It didn't garner particularly wide notice, did it? (A mention on Pandagon doesn't really count in this context.) And it's not particularly in keeping with our policies to turn articles on guys like this into "look at this fundy nutter" fests. Grace Note 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google brings up hundreds of references to it. Meme it may be, but its bold illogic for the purpose of misleading the public is creditable (particularly as it appears to be part of a professionally produced 'item'). His 'contribution' to whatever it's part of might could easily be cited. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/441/ for instance is the 'text' version from his own online ministry. From the mouth of babes.--Koncorde 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note - to Hrafn - given that the peanut butter thing is pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for. It seems bizarre not to include it. What would qualify as notable?--80.194.170.170 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the peanut butter thing clearly isn't notable (no significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NOTE), if it is "pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for", then the guy probably isn't notable either, and the article should, eventually, be merged/redirected/deleted. To be "notable" it has to be something more than just getting laughed at, in passing, in marginal sources. HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." so arguments over verifiability is one thing, removing stuff from a wiki on the basis that you think one part isn't "notable" however isn't covered.Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out to Koncorde that 80.194.170.170 was defending the inclusion of "the peanut butter thing" on the basis of notability, which was why I was addressing that issue above. I deleted the material on the basis of lack of reliable sources, the trivial nature of the information, and the trivialising treatment that the few marginal sources that could be found gave it. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. [...] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." (my emphasis) HrafnTalkStalk 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> It's a redirect. Find verification of the subject's notability from reliable third party sources and you'll have sumething to build an article on. Preferably provide the sources for discussion here first. Allegations of fraud in a self-published source don't cut it. . 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs)

JamesMLane's revert[edit]

Contentious discussion between Hrafn and JamesMLane

JamesMLane has reverted the redirect with the edit summary: "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". I would point out that:

  1. AfDs have repeatedly disavowed control over merges and redirects as being under their purview (with 'redirect' consensuses often closed as 'keep's).
  2. AfDs quite frequently result in 'keep's for NN articles: WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IAR appears to override WP:NOTE more often than not there. In any case a two year old AfD is hardly controlling over redirection, which does not require AfD approval.
  3. The second AfD on this article was ludicrously superficial (and the first was "no consensus").
  4. Missler is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT (at least as far as sourced information goes), so an article on him seems to be inappropriate.

Unless anybody can come up with a strong countervailing argument, it is my intention to restore the redirection. HrafnTalkStalk 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis. The incessant relisting, as happened with Daniel Brandt for example, is abusive and improper, but I agree with you that a two-year-old AfD can reasonably be revisited. Until there's a new AfD, however, the question whether there should be a separate article on Missler has been resolved in favor of keeping one. Your personal opinion that the previous AfD was "superficial" doesn't give you the right to override it. Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as "delete". If there's a policy that allows that, please give me the link. You could reasonably make Chuck Missler a redirect only if, for example, you were moving the article to a different title.
As to the merits, I don't see him as a one-event figure. The article lists him as the article of two books published by Thomas Nelson. I just Googled this search: "Chuck Missler" -wikipedia -plagiarism (to screen out most Wikipedia mirrors and at least some of the articles about the plagiarism incident) and got 134,000 hits. Neither of those facts is dispositive but they're indications that we should have an article about him. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#"If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis." No! An AfD is not required for a redirect. And, even when the consensus is for redirect, it is not uncommon for the closing admin to kick the issue back to article talk as a 'keep (as in not-delete), you settle the rest yourselves as it doesn't require Admin involvement'.

  1. The second AfD was clearly "superficial": the first keep !vote was on the basis that he was a "published author" (insufficient per WP:BIO#Creative professionals), the second was WP:GOOGLEHITS, the third was bare assertion and the fourth was based on his books being listed on Amazon (which quite frequently lists self-published books of little or no notability). It was closed (after only 2 1/2 days) as a 'speedy keep' as an administrative matter (the nominator was a banned editor), not on its merits. Therefore the original no consensus AfD is controlling.
  2. Your "I don't see him as a one-event figure" is likewise WP:GOOGLEHITS. If you think that there is WP:RS beyond this WP:ONEEVENT then the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce it.

HrafnTalkStalk 10:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I would further point out that the cited sources do not establish Missler's notability as "an author" (other than as a plagiarist), "conservative Bible teacher", "founder of the Koinonia House ministry", "former businessman", "minister" or "biblical fundamentalist". So unless we change the lead to read "Charles "Chuck" Missler is a plagiarist", there is no notability established here (WP:ONEEVENT or not). HrafnTalkStalk 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my previous request for information about policy. There were two previous AfD's, each based on a nominator's assertion that the subject was nonnotable. Each resulted in the article being kept despite this objection (the first through "no consensus", the second through a direct "keep" result). You now contend that you, as one editor, may effectively overturn the result of those processes, because you personally deem Missler nonnotable, even though several other editors who expressly considered and addressed the point concluded that he is notable. What policy authorizes such an outcome? Please provide a link.
It's just no answer to say that AfD doesn't apply to redirects. When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article. That's why I said that your edit effectively reverses the AfD result. The precise issue of notability has been considered by the community. Your view has not been accepted. You can't proceed unilaterally; you must initiate a third AfD. What's the problem with doing that? The way deletionism is running rampant these days, I'd bet on the AfD to succeed. JamesMLane t c 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#The guideline applying to redirects is WP:REDIRECT. Please note that this guideline makes no mention of an AfD being needed.

  1. WP:AFD likewise states "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
  2. Incidentally, if you don't know what the policy is then please read the relevant policy first, before reverting and before making demands. Failing to do so simply puts others' backs up, and make you look foolish. It is hardly rocket science to work out that WP:REDIRECT & WP:AFD would be the appropriate policies.
  3. A 'no consensus' keep + a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned provides no basis whatsoever for requiring that the article remain un-redirected. Neither resulted in a finding that the article to be unambiguously "notable".
  4. You are incorrect to state that "When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article." A "delete" close results in a WP:REDLINK.
    • Your previous statement that "Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as 'delete'" was likewise incorrect. A delete results in a redlink and the loss of the article-history, a redirect does not. A "delete" takes an admin, and an admin to reverse it -- a redirect takes neither.

Now that I have completely demolished your 'AfD first' argument, do you have any WP:RSes demonstrating WP:Notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT? If not, then I'll return the redirect. If you still object to this, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:BLP/N (as WP:ONEEVENT is part of WP:BLP). HrafnTalkStalk 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice that I read the policies. I will reciprocate with the advice that you reconsider the tone of your comments. I am indeed familiar with WP:Redirect, and, because it provides no support whatsoever for your interpretation, I thought there must be some more specialized policy that you had in mind.
Under the heading "What do we use redirects for?", you'll find the section Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts, which discusses making a redirect "to a 'list of minor entities'-type article which is a collection of brief descriptions for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles." That's what you've done. You'll note that it expressly incorporates the assumption that the subject isn't notable. If the AfD discussion had concluded that Missler wasn't notable, I doubt that his name would've been left as a redlink; no one would've objected to a redirect to where he was listed. Nonnotability is a basis for deleting an article but is not a basis for deleting a redirect; in fact, the quoted excerpt from the redirect guideline makes clear that redirects of this particular type are appropriate only if the subject is nonnotable.
So, Question One is whether Missler is notable, and Question Two is what process Wikipedia should use to arrive at an answer to Question One. My answer to Question Two is that our process is the AfD. In some instances, including the first Missler AfD, that process does not result in a finding that the article is unambiguously notable. You are quite correct on that score. In such instances, however, the policy directs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Furthermore, the second Missler AfD produced an unambiguous "keep". Five users responded, with four favoring "keep", all on the basis of Missler's notability. One of the four then supplemented his comment by adding that the nomination was by a banned user. The editor closing the AfD made no reference to the nominator's status. Nevertheless, you contend that the AfD result was "a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned" -- a position unsupported by the record. Furthermore, even if that were true, your remedy would be to re-list for deletion or to request a deletion review (which is usually done to contest a "delete" result but which, according to Wikipedia:Deletion review, "includes ... appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion)".
The difference between us is that your answer to Question Two is apparently along these lines: A lone editor who decides that the subject is nonnotable may treat it as nonnotable, even though several experienced editors in two prior AfD's have opined that the subject is indeed notable, even though both AfD's resulted in the article being kept, even though no additional AfD has been commenced, and even though no deletion review has been commenced. In my opinion, such a process would be a recipe for chaos.
There's no reason that the burden should be on me to go to WP:BLP/N or anyplace else. If you still disagree with the results of the prior AfD's, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:AfD or WP:DRV. The discussion could also include whether Missler's self-published books should be included in the article (clearly they should), and whether they relate to his notability (that would depend on what kind of sales and/or critical notice they received). JamesMLane t c 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JamesMLane: your claims are directly contradicted by policy. Per the passage quoted above, WP:AFD explicitly disavows responsibility for "problems that do not require deletion"', a category in which it explicitly includes redirects. Your statement that "My answer to Question Two is that our process [for determining notability] is the AfD" is therefore inaccurate. AfD is the process for determining notability only in the context of deletion. WP:AFD actually gives an exhortation to "be bold and fix the problem" -- clearly giving justification for "a lone editor" doing something about it. That the article stood unrestored for six months rather indicates that there was little in the way of a consensus against my WP:BOLD move.
As you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate, nor any WP:RSes establishing notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT, I am restoring the redirect. If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention. HrafnTalkStalk 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to learn that I have failed to provide a basis that you consider legitimate. As you know, my view is that you are not the ultimate arbiter who's empowered to unilaterally overrule the position of the numerous other Wikipedians who considered the matter and decided that Missler was notable, so your view of what's legitimate isn't dispositive. You, however, persist in treating it as such, so there's evidently no point in my continuing to attempt to explain Wikipedia policy to you.
You write, "If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention." I'm not going to revert it again because I don't believe in edit warring. In any event, as I've stated, I don't see this as a matter for WP:BLP/N. There are no issues here that are unique to BLP's. This could just as well be an article about a long-dead medieval nobleman, whom some Wikipedians considered notable and some considered non-notable. What's at issue is following the proper process for resolving such differences of opinion.
Unfortunately, after I rule out an edit war I have no bright ideas about how to proceed. It seems to me obvious that, given your multiple denunciations of the prior AfD's, you should begin a new AfD, but you're apparently unwilling to do so -- a refusal that at least reflects your consistent position that other editors' opinions on notability don't matter if those opinions conflict with your own. I thought about starting an RfC, but I have to fear that comments you don't agree with would simply be met by, "you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate". It comes back to that fundamental process disagreement -- that you edit based on your personal view of the merits (in this case, your view that Missler isn't notable enough for an article), regardless of what anyone else believes.
That seems to leave WP:AN/I as the only option. I would hate to do that, because you're certainly no vandal and you believe in good faith that Missler is non-notable, but you are contravening our established process. In favor of going to WP:AN/I is that your override of two AfD's, if allowed to stand, would set a bad precedent, which provides some justification for bringing a petty dispute to that page. Do you have any other ideas? JamesMLane t c 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

"Do you have any other ideas?" Yes! You can read the following passage which you have repeatedly failed to address from WP:AFD:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

This is what I did. My actions therefore are NOT "contravening our established process". I was doing exactly what the relevant policy exhorts us to do as an "appropriate" and "efficient alternative" to listing the article as an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC) I would further point out that throughout the above you have never cited a specific (page and section please) policy (or set of policies) that my initial redirect violated. You complaints have ubiquitously been based upon vague and nebulous claims about "established process" and similar -- without citing the policies that establish the specific "process" that I am purported to have violated. This will make it rather difficult for you to report me to WP:AN/I -- as you have no policy basis for a complaint. HrafnTalkStalk 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a strong element of "I didn't hear that" in this discussion. You and I have apparently been talking past each other, with each naturally considering the other at fault.
Believe it or not, I had read the AfD policy even before this discussion began. The policy states, in your quoted excerpt, that an issue like a POV problem isn't a basis for deletion. By contrast, however, nonnotability is a basis for deletion. I never cited a policy to that effect because I thought it was fairly well known. Given that I was evidently mistaken, I apologize for the omission. Here you go: "Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". That's from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, seventh bulleted point. Therefore, nonnotability is not among the "problems that do not require deletion". For a final citation, I'll document that your action was expressly based on alleged nonnotability, because your edit summary described it as "redirect of article on non-notable topic".
In this instance, alleged nonnotability is an issue that has already been considered twice in the proper forum, namely AfD. You've stated your grounds for disputing the decisions that were made in those AfD's. Wikipedia policy sets forth the method for resolving such disagreements: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." That's from the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion review.
I don't know if there's a page somewhere that states expressly, "When Wikipedia policy sets forth a procedure for resolving a dispute, and the prescribed procedure involves soliciting opinions from the entire community, and such a procedure is employed, then it's improper for one editor to unilaterally act on his or her contrary conclusion merely because he or she disagrees with the Wikipedians who participated in the prescribed process." That's probably just an implicit policy -- implicit in the policy of having policies, which would otherwise be mere essays. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#I have been ignoring much of what you have said because you have been raising unsubstantiated irrelevancies.

  1. Case in point, it is irrelevant that "nonnotability is a basis for deletion" -- as WP:AFD makes no assertion that it is the forum for all determinations to do with notability, but to the contrary explicitly disavows any responsibility for questions where a deletion is not on the table. As a matter of fact, merger discussions frequently raise notability questions, with non-notable articles often being merged into related topics, in part to avoid the possibility of an AfD resulting in deletion. I think this is an example of a fallacy of the undistributed middle.
  2. WP:AFD further states: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." (my emphasis) Is that explicit enough for you? Redirects do not require an AfD! (I didn't previously read this far down, as the box at the top already clearly supported my position.)

As WP:AFD explicitly supports my position, I think this matter is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2009

I'll take that as confirmation that, if I went to the trouble of presenting the dispute via RfC, and twenty other editors showed up and unanimously agreed with me, you would simply dismiss the lot of us as uninformed. In sum, Hrafn Has Spoken, hence you "think this matter is closed." I think you are wrong. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No! WP:AFD "Has Spoken" and has clearly and unambiguously stated that redirects don't require AfDs: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your complete and utter unwillingness to acknowledge explicit policy is both tendentious and disruptive. Enough! HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I found your tone irritating, but you've graduated to being amusing. In this discussion, if such it can be called, I've made the same points repeatedly. You've made the same points repeatedly. In my view, that means we disagree and we're talking past each other. In your view, it means that I'm being tendentious and disruptive, presumably by my failure to acknowledge your omniscience. Anyway, I agree with your "Enough!" if it means that I've spent enough time trying to explain my position to you, and I'm now ending that effort. The question will have to be addressed through other means. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Material attempting to argue that an AfD is required for redirects, in direct contradiction to WP:AFD which states "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." It has therefore been userfied to User talk:JamesMLane per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". HrafnTalkStalk 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

I am restoring the material, but putting it into a {{hidden}} template. Note that JamesMLane has objected that Hrafn's summary above does not fairly reflect his position. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm striking my side of this discussion in its entirety and letting JamesMLane's vacuous "position" stand in lone opposition to this simple statement of policy:

Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.

— WP:AFD

HrafnTalkStalk 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll balance that by quoting the policy provisions that I cited in support of my view that a lone editor can't replace a full article with a redirect if the alleged problem is nonnotability:

Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline....

— Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

— WP:AFD
JamesMLane t c 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd like to offer a quote that is equally as "supportive" of JamesMLane's position as either of his quotes:

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts...

— As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7, 139–42
:) HrafnTalkStalk 09:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or my favourite Shakespearian direction: "Enter a sewer, with hautboys." Macbeth. Never mind the policies, either produce a properly souced bio or leave it as a redirect. . dave souza, talk 09:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act III, Scene 2) But, dave, I can't agree with "Never mind the policies." We have 2.7 million articles. We can't make up rules on a case-by-case basis. Our policy is that, where there's a dispute about whether a topic is nonnotable (and therefore about whether that topic should have a standalone article), the dispute is resolved by getting community participation through WP:AfD. If I've misunderstood the current policy, or if the consensus is to change it, then the policy pages should be amended. That would mean amending WP:AfD so that it would read, "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, nonnotability of the subject, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy would have to be amended to alert editors that, if they consider a topic nonnotable, they may simply blank the content and substitute a redirect, without going through AfD. I would oppose such a change, but I believe that our written policies should accurately inform the reader of what policy is actually being applied. The better solution in this particular case is to keep the wording as it is and apply the policy as I've summarized it. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Hi. I just happened by and thought I'd offer an opinion. First of all, Hrafn is correct that a page can be redirected without an AfD. Also, it is not entirely correct for JamesMLane to say that this page has "passed AfD". If you look at the above links to the two AfD discussions, the first one was a circus that was closed with no consensus, while the second was ruled "out of order" and closed early because it was initiated by a banned user. Secondly, the version that JamesMLane most recently tried to restore is a sorry excuse for a WP page (please excuse my language). It consists of an accusation of plagiarism and some lists of the subject's works. No way would that version pass AfD if it went there. But thirdly, digging more deeply, I see that the version that went through the previous AfD's and existed until December 2007 is this one, which has since been dismantled piece-by-piece by none other than Hrafn until reaching its current highly deletable status. That said, I can't say I actually disagree with Hrafn's actions along this line. The 2007 version of the article was very poorly sourced and quite questionable in its notability. There is no indication of any unrelated reliable source actually writing anything substantial about this subject, so it fails my WP:N test. Even the 2007 version might have failed AfD had it been sent there.

Overall, my conclusion is that I support the actions I have seen from Hrafn. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are some circumstances under which a page can be redirected without an AfD, and I never contended otherwise (although Hrafn's inaccurate summary above might give you that impression). For example, if someone were to create a new page at Charles Missler and write a couple sentences of bio, the correct response would be to remove all the content and substitute a redirect to Chuck Missler. No one would contend that the Charles Missler article would have to be nominated at AfD. The difference is that, in that instance, Wikipedia would still have an article about the subject. Duplicate pages is an example of a problem that can be handled by a redirect, without an AfD. Nonnotability, however, is not such a problem. Nonnotability is the single most common basis for AfD. The use of AfD to resolve notability disputes can't be circumvented by twisting the redirect policy.
The two prior AfD's resulted in "keep". Yes, the first was "no consensus". Under the policy, that defaults to "keep". In the second AfD, four of the five responding editors favored keeping the article. Objections to the procedure or substance of the prior AfD's should be addressed through WP:DRV or by commencement of a third AfD, not through unilateral action.
As for the underlying notability issue, I agree with your assessment that an AfD on this article might well result in its deletion. I said so in the discussion and urged Hrafn to follow the appropriate procedure, which is to commence a third AfD (which I predicted would result in deletion). Unfortunately, Hrafn has consistently proceeded on the basis of unilateralism rather than seeking consensus, which is why the matter will now be wasting people's time at WP:AN/I. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by your argument that an AfD is required in this case (or, I think more accurately, your argument is that the page should either be AfD'ed our kept intact, with redirect being an inappropriate option). I don't have a problem, in general, with turning an article with very little content into a redirect to a list. However, the charge of "unilateralism rather than seeking consensus" is more substantial. Is there anyone other than yourself who has objected to Hrafn's actions? Is there anyone who has supported him? I think the proper thing to do here is to seek consensus, and a perfectly legitimate outcome of that may be Hrafn's redirect. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my argument is that the article should remain as an article or be AfD'd. In the discussion that Hrafn has userfied, I mentioned another alternative: Given that Hrafn has raised various objections to the two prior AfD's, those objections could be presented at WP:DRV. The key is that, as you suggest, the issue of notability must be addressed through a consensus process, not through one editor's decision.
Hrafn's blanking of the page and substitution of a redirect has drawn little attention. An anon twice reverted, without discussion on the talk page. Hrafn re-reverted each revert. Other than that, I don't know of anyone other than Hrafn, you, and me who has addressed the point. (I became involved only because I encountered a reference to Missler off-wiki and came here to get information about him, and found what I considered a gross violation of process.)
As to the content of the article, if we had this much content about someone who was universally considered notable, no one would think that converting the article into a redirect to a list was appropriate. The unanimous response would be that the article should be kept as a stub and improved. The only way to justify Hrafn's action is by assuming that Missler is nonnotable -- an assumption that, to Hrafn's credit, he expressly stated in his ES's, but an assumption that others dispute and that has already been discussed by the community twice.
I'm in the process of writing up Hrafn's conduct, though I'm currently leaning toward posting at WP:EAR rather than WP:AN/I. JamesMLane t c 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:DRV is an option when the AfD was a couple years ago and (as far as I know) the closing admin did nothing wrong. The second AfD may well have come to a different conclusion had it been able to run to completion, but the reason it didn't was perfectly legitimate. If an AfD is deemed necessary, then there's nothing wrong with a third AfD.
Incidentally, I don't think it's quite appropriate to say that the subject's notability has "been discussed by the community twice," as the second time was aborted. It's also worth noting that the first time was when he had recently been the subject of a short-lived Internet meme.
I see your point on the procedural issue, but I still think Hrafn's actions, while questionable, are justifiable. I would rather see you proceed on the merits (i.e., argue that the material he has removed should be restored, though I would disagree with that argument) rather than on procedural grounds. But if you need to write this up and post this, WP:EAR seems a better idea (less drama) than WP:ANI. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm convinced that "proceed on the merits" would consist of my explaining my reasons, and Hrafn sneerily responding, with lots of italics and boldfacing and exclamation marks, that his personal view was clearly and unambigously supported by policy. Besides, how can I restore specific material to the article, when there's now no article? I'd have to revert his redirect and restore the material. Then he'd redirect again. Perhaps a saint would have the patience to try to work with Hrafn, but at this point I'd rather start by getting at least a little stability to the article. Besides, I care much more about the general process issue than about specific questions like whether Missler's self-published works should be listed. If one editor can assert non-notability and convert an article into a redirect to a list, then AfD is a farce. JamesMLane t c 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, BlueMoonlet, I hate to impose on you, but you're the only other editor who's stopped by. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this edit by Hrafn, in which he unilaterally removed the discussion from this talk page. He gave the explanation, "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". I believe that the discussion was quite relevant, even if it included comments with which Hrafn disagreed. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a questionable move by Hrafn, though the conversation did seem to generate more heat than light. I have restored it but put it into a {{hidden}} template. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to JamesMLane's "this much content", I would point out that the vast majority of that "content" was unsourced and/or unreliably sourced. HrafnTalkStalk 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the article should be nominated for FA or anything like that. My point was that, if we had an article in that shape -- sourcing defects and all -- about a person universally deemed notable, no one would seriously consider deleting it or making it a redirect just because some of the information had problems. I note that you do not dispute that assertion. JamesMLane t c 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nobody raised the question of "FA or anything like that" so that point is irrelevant.
  2. Unsourced and unreliably sourced material does not in any way count towards notability. Your continued hand-waving over this cannot obscure this point.
  3. Your claim that Missler is "a person universally deemed notable" is wholly unsubstantiated, and is contradicted by the lack of significant reliably sourced coverage of him. [Misread originally] If we had "a person universally deemed notable", we would have a wealth of reliable third-party coverage with which to fix the article. This is not the case with Missler, so your "hypothetical" is irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "point"s are in fact utterly pointless. No doubt you will argumentum ad nauseam]] your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this issue, as you did above on WP:AFD. To say I am neither interested nor impressed would be a massive understatement. HrafnTalkStalk 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your response misses the point so completely....
  1. Of course there's no question of FA, nor did I say there was; it was a way of emphasizing what I wasn't claiming.
  2. The issue, as I have tried to explain to you, is not whether Missler is notable, but by what process the question of his notability should be resolved.
  3. Your statement that I "claim that Missler is 'a person universally deemed notable'" is a flat-out falsehood. I used the word if, to introduce something called a "hypothetical".
And, with all your commenting, you still have not disputed the basic point that I made. JamesMLane t c 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From g-news hits, he looks notable to me. [1] and [2], for instance, are two reliable sources that make more than a passing mention of him. It's also of note that he was once the chairman of Western Digital. His name is pretty well-recognized in evangelical Christian circles - I even have a copy of this book somewhere - although he's into the UFO thing and bible codes so he isn't really taken seriously outside of Calvary Chapel. --B (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this, though - after reviewing the article history, leaving it as a redirect is better than anything there is available to revert to. All that is readily available is the plagiarism allegation, a laundry list of books, and a bunch of unsourced biographical material that may or may not be true. A better step would be to compile a list of available sources, then start from scratch. --B (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report of editor assistance request concerning Hrafn[edit]

User:Hrafn's conduct at Chuck Missler and Talk:Chuck Missler is the subject of a request for assistance, posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User:Hrafn. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the AFDs, I don't think they should be considered binding by any stretch. The first was disrupted by a Gastrich sock. The second was speedy closed because it was a sock that opened it. So there never really has been a community decision on it ... and even if there had been, standards for BLPs have completely changed in the last three years. Now, unsourced content is vigorously removed from BLPs whereas then it was fact tagged and left alone. --B (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the prior AfD's aren't "binding" in the sense that they would somehow preclude reconsideration of the notability issue. In fact, I suggested to Hrafn that he could and should start a third AfD. Changes in standards, though, don't justify anyone in conducting a new AfD in his own mind, "closing" it, and acting on the result. The prior AfD results must be respected unless and until there's a new AfD. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) WP:AFD explicitly states that an AfD isn't needed for redirection and (ii) explicitly exhorts editors to "be bold" with "pages needing redirects". JamesMLane's WP:AGF-violative personal attack that I have been "conducting a new AfD in his own mind, "closing" it, and acting on the result" is therefore complete and utter nonsense. I am sick to death of these baseless accusations! HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ri> JamesMLane, you appear to be confused. The article hasn't been deleted, a biographical stub which fails WP:V and WP:BLP has been made into a redirect. As B has pointed out above, there appear to be sources available to construct a proper article – if you'd put your effort into finding reliable sources and constructing a new article based on third party sources, you'd be there by now. . . dave souza, talk 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misunderstand my concern, dave. Although I do think that the prior AfD's were closed correctly and that the article should be kept as a standalone article, I think it far, far more important to establish the general rule of process. A lone user may blank an article and substitute a redirect if, for example, it's a duplicate article. That procedure is not proper, however, if the alleged defect in the lone user's mind is nonnotability.
If there's a third AfD and the conclusion is that Missler is nonnotable, it will be very minor disappointment to me. By contrast, if Wikipedia accepts Hrafn's interpretation of policy -- that someone who considers an article nonnotable may, on that basis, simply make it a redirect without bothering to go through AfD -- then we'll have chaos. Why should anyone ever bother to nominate an article on AfD at all, when it's so much simpler to make it a redirect and put the burden of further action on those who favor keeping it? See the Bizz buzz example I gave at EAR, or create your own example from just about any pending AfD.
You're entitled to your opinion that the Missler stub fails WP:V and WP:BLP. My opinion is that some particular statements in the article might fail those standards, but the whole article can't; for example, the statement that Missler is a published author is well sourced, verifiable, nonlibelous, noncontentious, nonnegative, and undisputed. The real issue is WP:NOTE: Does the information that's compliant with our policies support a conclusion of notability? On that issue, opinions differ. All I'm asking is that such a dispute about notability be discussed at WP:AfD in accordance with established procedures. What's the alternative? If someone answers that the proper approach is a debate about notability on the article's talk page, then that person is, in effect, favoring the abolition (or obsolescence) of WP:AfD. JamesMLane t c 10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if a substantial article can be properly based on reliable sources, provide these sources and ensure that the content of the article is based on them. If you think the subject is not notable, put it up for AfD, but given that your attention has been drawn to suitable sources, that would seem rather WP:POINTy. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, dave, but you're still missing the point. After the furor over Missler subsides, and there is or is not an article about him, some user other than Hrafn will blank and redirect some article other than Chuck Missler because that other user will decide that the subject of that other article is nonnotable. My chief concern is that we establish, in general, that such behavior is not appropriate. Whether we have a Missler article is less important than whether we have a sensible process in place to deal with such recurring disputes. JamesMLane t c 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, Hrafn's behavior is appropriate. Due to several high profile incidents, like the Seigenthaler incident, Wikipedia errs strongly on the side of not having an article or of blanking a poorly written article and starting from scratch. I actually initially agreed with you and after I posted [3] I was going to revert the article myself, but then I looked for a good version to revert to and found none. Hrafn was correct to blank it pending a rewrite. This talk page can be used to list reliable sources of information about Missler and then from that, a real bio can be constructed from scratch. --B (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly correct that, in (over)reaction to the Siegenthaler incident, there's been more of a tendency toward deletionism with regard to BLP's. My understanding is that there's nevertheless no consensus on the idea that, in an AfD, "no consensus" should default to "delete" for a BLP, and clearly the standards for non-BLP articles are different. On the EAR page I used the Bizz Buzz AfD as an example. It would be possible for our policy to approve unilateral blanking-and-redirect for BLP's while requiring that all other notability issues go through AfD, but that distinction has not (yet) been approved as policy, and would be opposed by many of us. JamesMLane t c 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... several comments here. (1) The AFD from three years ago does NOT in any way, shape, or form dictate what should be done with this article. It isn't a justification for keeping the article. It isn't a justification for blanking it. It isn't a justification for making a tuna fish sandwich while reading it backwards in pig Latin. The decision (or lack thereof) is of no value in deciding the correct course of action here. (2) The only issue is that the article, prior to blanking, was junk and that's not acceptable for a BLP. Once the unsourced material was removed, all that was left was a few random allegations. That wasn't a useful starting point. (3) The rules for BLPs are different. It's worth it to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons. Administrators (which Hrafn is not, but Dave Souza is and I am) "are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." (4) There has been no overreaction to BLP. This is one of the biggest websites on the internet and if we have an article about a subject, it's the #1 hit for any term. If our article about Chuck Missler is nothing other than an allegation that he plagiarized a book one time, what do you think that's going to do to him when he goes into a job interview? BLPs have to be neutral and they can't give Undue weight|undue weight to single events. (5) Even if blanking and redirecting weren't an authority given to administrators under the special enforcement provisions above, it is still a legitimate editorial decision that any editor, acting in good faith, might make. As with all things, it's subject to discussion. It doesn't require an AFD to do it nor does an AFD preclude it. --B (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The two prior AfD's don't "dictate" what has to be done in the sense of being cast in stone, but surely you don't mean that an AfD is of no force or effect thirty seconds after it's closed. When the issue isn't BLP compliance, or reliability of sources, but rather notability (the ground on which Hrafn himself stated he acted), and when the issue of notability has twice been presented to the community, the results of those processes are part of the picture. A lone editor who disagrees with the outcome of two prior AfD's can't just ignore them. (2) Of course, the prior AfD's didn't involve adjudication of compliance with policies concerning specific statements in the article. The prior AfD's would generally have no bearing on an editor's decision to remove material that doesn't comply with BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and whatever other policies apply. That material can be removed. If any editor thinks that the removal of the inappropriate material leaves an article that doesn't establish the subject's notability, then he or she can go ahead and re-list the article, in its newly truncated form, for AfD. (3) For that reason, the special consideration for BLP doesn't require that an article be converted to a redirect. An article that says, in its entirety, "Chuck Missler is a former businessman who is now a Christian minister" (with a citation) doesn't violate BLP. It would fail to show notability -- would fail it so clearly that CSD A7 would be appropriate. With a bit more indication of significance, such as including his authorship of the book Learn the Bible in 24 Hours, it wouldn't be an A7 but the AfD would almost certainly result in a deletion. (4) Whether there's been an overreaction to the Siegenthaler case is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that there has been. That doesn't mean that any random blogger's allegation against anyone should be breathlessly reported and accepted as true on Wikipedia; such a result would go too far the other way. At any rate, the fundamental issue here -- the appropriate procedure when editors disagree in good faith about the notability of an article subject -- is a largely separate question. (The only overlap is that some editors favor considering the wishes of a BLP article subject in a case of borderline notability, an exception that hasn't arisen re Missler.) (5) Your fifth point expresses your agreement with Hrafn about procedure, but neither you nor he has gone into detail about the consequences of your position. In the EAR I said: "For example, by Hrafn's reasoning, this recent AfD was unnecessary, as the nominator could instead have unilaterally removed all the content at Bizz buzz and substituted a redirect to Drinking game. The same could be said of practically any current AfD." If blanking and redirecting is a tool that any editor can use, then do you believe that the editor who considered Bizz buzz nonnotable could properly have blanked and redirected it without going to AfD? My own view is that any editor could blank and redirect for some problems, like duplicate articles, as per the list in the WP:AFD policy, but not for other problems, like nonnotability. Incidentally, I would adhere to that view even in the absence of any prior AfD's, but their existence makes unilateral action even more improper. JamesMLane t c 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article sources[edit]

Sources[edit]

  1. Missler, Chuck (2002). "About the Author". Learn the Bible in 24 Hours. Thomas Nelson Publishers. pp. 315–316. ISBN 0785264299.
    • Attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated with honors
    • Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base
    • Worked as a systems engineer at TRW (now Northrop Grumman) after leaving the Air Force
    • Left TRW to work for a non-profit think tank
    • Masters in engineering from UCLA
    • PhD from Louisiana Baptist University (not mentioned in this book, but that's an unaccredited school)
    • In 1966, while working for Ford Motor Company, he created the first international computer network (This is also claimed at his bio at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62882] - I'd like to see it from a neutral source)
    • Started his own computer company, then did consulting work and worked on various boards of directors
    • Turned Western Digital from Chapter 11 into a profitable company
    • Owned a company called the "Phoenix Group International", which went belly up following a failed $8 billion deal with the Soviet Union. The company collapsed when the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
    • Started full time Christian work un the 70s, and in 1991, started working full time with Koinonia House
  2. Clark, Victoria. "Chuck Missler's Tour of the Holy Land". Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism. Yale University Press. pp. 1–23. ISBN 9780300116984. (not Victoria Clark the singer,[4] Victoria Clark the author.[5] dave souza, talk 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Google books search for Chuck Missler - there are plenty of them, mostly trivial, such as simply listing him in a works cited or saying, "I was listening to Chuck Missler's radio show last week", then continuing with something unrelated to a biography
  4. Alex Heard and Peter Klebnikov (1998-12-27). "Apocalypse Now. No, Really. Now!". The New York Times.
    • Misler believes that the Nephilim from the Bible exist today and that they are space aliens having sex with human women to procreate and create a Satanic army for the battle of Armageddon. (Maybe this explains why Western Digital drives are terrible.)
  5. "Chief Is Named At Helionetics". The New York Times. 1983-10-27.
    • Missler became the chairman of Western Digital "six years ago when the company was in bankruptcy proceedings" (so, 1977, confirmed [6])
    • Missler became the chairman and CEO of Helionetics on October 27, 1983. He resigned on December 24, 1984.[7] That company went out of business on August 1, 1986. [8]
  6. "COMPANY NEWS; Phoenix to Supply PC's to Soviets". Associated Press via the New York Times. 1989-09-12.
    • Phoenix Group International, owned by chairman Charles W Missler, gets a deal to supply PCs to schools in the Soviet Union. What could possibly go wrong?
  7. Calvary Chapel Wiki - Chuck Missler - NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE - we can read it to see what information they have and what, if any, sources they cite, but we cannot use a wiki as a source
  8. Takahash, Dean (1990-12-07). "Head of Phoenix Group Explains Venture Failure Trade: Chairman Charles W. Missler says sale of computers to Soviet Union fell apart because of lack of capital and problems with the firm's Soviet partners". Los Angeles Times.
    • Soviets failed to make payments on the computers they bought, Missler's partner blames Missler in part for failure, Missler says deal is dead
  9. Olmos, David (1989-10-08). "PHOENIX RISING Computer deal with Soviets puts controversial executive back in limelight". Los Angeles Times.
    • Missler was sued by Helionetics after he left for a conflict of interest - he allegedly rejected a plan for Helionetics to buy Resdel Industries, then had his own investment firm buy it instead. His firm agreed to pay up to $1.6 million to settle the suit.
    • Missler's former partner at Western Digital said that the company under Missler's leadership had "a good reputation for technology and a terrible reputation for execution".
  10. Lazzareschi, Carla (1985-11-26). "Ex-Chief Missler to Pay $1.6 Million to Helionetics".
    • More about the above lawsuit
  11. Other random Google News stories (also without the middle initial) - mostly just duplicating the above
  12. Chuck's official bio from khouse.org
  13. Articles published by Smith advocating a conspiracy theory regarding Roswell and UFOs [9][10][11]

Did anyone check out Google Scholar yet? Seems that lost in a sea of self-reference, there are a few (at least minor) third-party references. I'll maybe try to write a good article on him over the next week or so - I've rescued one good topic from the AfD dustbin, and I've had a soft spot for Chuck and his Nephilim theory for a couple years. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I created this section to start listing potential sources for recreating the article from scratch. (Obviously, some of them, like his own book, don't establish notability, but they provide basic who what where facts that we can use to create an article.) Please add to it. Things that I think are important to cover - (1) more on his UFO views - the New York Times piece is just a "look at the funny UFOers" bit rather than a serious article on what he actually believes, (2) his Bible code views, (3) basic biographical facts like where and when he was born, dates for his various notable jobs, (4) something about K-House--B (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bought Western Digital" claim, if true, should be verifiable (only GoogleBooks sources are only for "former chairman of Western Digital Corporation" and are from the religion side, not the computer/corporate side). I think we should test such claims before accepting his autobiographical material as reliable. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at the book - I misread "brought" as "bought". Long day ... my bad ... fixed. --B (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An easy enough mistake to make. I can find nothing RS on the web confirming this, and given the plagiarism thing, his own word isn't particularly reliable. Does it list dates for his chairmanship? If we had dates we could (at least potentially) find out definitively if he or somebody else was chairman at the time. HrafnTalkStalk 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just says "early 1980s". They filed for chapter 11 in 1976. [12] Here is a New York Times article which confirms it. [13] Incidentally, it says he was the "largest shareholder". If I believed in Bible codes, I might call my misreading "prophetic".  ;) --B (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a source of sources, the Missler article on the "Calvary Chapel Wiki" might help by providing useful links. Despite its name, the wiki is not by Calvary Chapel, but appears to be the effort of an anonymous Christian critic of Calvary Chapel. JamesMLane t c 04:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too and added it above. I didn't realize it was actually anti-Calvary Chapel. I was thinking/hoping that Calvary Chapel had actually realized that UFOs and Bible Codes are unbiblical. Oh well. --B (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that you'd added it -- I was working off your earlier version. Although it's not a Calvary Chapel product, it does seem to be by someone whose main concern about those fringe topics is indeed that they're unbiblical, and that Missler's immersion in pseudoscience hurts the Christian cause. So perhaps it's a small basis for hope. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood why he is so prominent there. There's plenty with Calvary Chapel that I don't agree with, but they are, for the most part, pretty Biblical. Missler is a glaring exception. --B (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a glance at Allies for Armageddon (which Dave just listed) on GoogleBooks -- Missler is mentioned in dozens of places, but the mentions are all maddeningly brief and/or oblique. HrafnTalkStalk 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it was previously listed when I looked at the linked author Victoria Clark the singer, which seemed rather odd, and having found that it was by another Victoria Clark who's written three books, removed the link and added an explanation in parentheses. It does give an indication of him as an example of a preacher of Christian Zionism and gives a couple of examples of his ideas and style, if similar reliable third party sources can be found that would establish his notability and provide a basis for an article. . dave souza, talk 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Is notability even in question at this point? Based on the articles I have linked above, it looks like he was a major technology executive in the 80s and even if he had retired/died/whatever after the Soviet Union deal and never been heard from again, he would warrant an article on that basis alone. --B (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with you B. The problem, as I see it, is not so much 'underlying notability' so much as a lack of sources to be able to present Missler as anything more than a series of bizarrely-disjointed snapshots. We have, for example, nothing on how he came to become a major shareholder/chairman of WD, or how he became a (generally regarded as fairly wacko) religious teacher/author. At a lesser level, we have nothing on how a Naval Academy graduated ended up working for the Air Force. This seems to be the sort of thing that WP:ACADEMIC (slightly off-point, I know) had in mind with its "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to ['underlying notability' standards], and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" clause. It may be possible to create a legitimate article at this point, but it will certainly be a very disjointed and confusing one. YMMV o'course. HrafnTalkStalk 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I've nominated the article for deletion again. The one source, besides the LA Times story, does not seem very notable to me for potentially harmful information on a living person. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evoluion/Abiogenesis[edit]

Hrafn beat me to the revert, so I'll say here what I was going to say in my edit summary.

Yes, the peanut butter video attacks "evolution" by name, when it is really addressing abiogenesis. Conflating the two is commonly done in creationist circles. While annoying, I think it is pretty clear that this is a rhetorical device and does not demonstrate ignorance. Attacking the subject on this point is semantics and not worth our time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm bemused that Missler could conflate peanut butter with primordial soup. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up Missler on Wikipedia. I'm someone, so he must be noteworthy. What...do you need a survey or consensus vote. I can't believe all the discussion about AfD. Wow, some of you really are censorship happy. If someone had interest they could research his life and fill in the blanks. But no, wikipedia suffers from a disease. The disease of censors that wish to kill(delete) anything they disagree with on the grounds of "anything they can think of". Thank you editors for being at least non-biased about whether or not his acomplishments are worthy of documention in wikiworld. I guess if it comes down to server space...ok maybe trash it. But all this "non-relevance" talk is pure censorship of, well in this case, a real life. You've wasted more discussion space than the article takes up. How about we remove all that hot air, aka Discussion. Oh...now I'm doing it...censorship is so tempting. Get your own life and maybe someone will think 'you' noteworthy. Until then I guess you'll have to appear here like me...just another pathetic voice in the ether (apologies to all of you who are "noteworthy" in your own right). BTW, I removed "Missler's "peanut butter" theory is one of the most embarrassing attempts known today, to disprove evolution." As it is embarrassing in it's own merit for lack of source. If such a statement had a source, I'd still remove it. Evolution is unproven so there is nothing technically to disprove...please excuse...Abiogenesis...sorry. And as mentioned elsewhere it's a analogy not a theory. If it was a theory like evolution and the theory postulated(that Abiogenesis does not occur in Peanut Butter) then it would be true until of course you could disprove it. But...you realized that...of course.
Just to set the record, I like the peanut butter analogy. Make's sense to me. Ok, so it's not primoridial soup. But when you create life out of that, do let us know, won't you? Than again I'm not well read...perhaps Hrafn has already done it...and become, noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.237.86 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Abiogenesis IS part of Evolution whether you like it or not. It's basically chemical evolution and the second part would then be biological evolution, which is the part Charles Darwin addressed in his book. Of course peanut butter isn't primordial soup. It's actually something more suitable for abiogenesis to occur since the materials living organisms consist of are present in far higher concentrations any imaginable primordial soup could ever have. --41.150.173.150 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects need attention[edit]

Redirects are working as of today - Porjo (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can someone help clean-up the redirects? As of now, you can only come across this article on Missler through the search "Charles Missler". The problem with this is that Chuck Missler (same person) does not, and has not used his formal name "Charles" in anything printed--websites, authored books, or otherwise. Therefore, when someone searches for this subject under the name he actually uses (Chuck), nothing is to be found--one must search for "Charles Missler" to find this article. Please make it so that when one searches for "Chuck Missler", they are brought directly to the appropriate page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italomex (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding[edit]

After the IP reverted the description of Missler as conservative, I took another look at this article and realised that there had been unexplained deletions and some stuff from the talk page not added. I've mentioned that he is a Christian Zionist (and a well known one among the movement) with links to the Patriot Movement. I think something should be added about his views on aliens given the NYTimes article and this [14]. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the above moved here from my talk page[edit]

Dougweller,

The second pillar of Wikipedia's five pillars [[15]]states:

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view"

This is the reason that the Chuck Missler comment was revised.

"Missler is a prominent Christian Zionist[6] with ties to the far right Patriot movement although he is described as neither racist nor anti-Semitic.[7] [8]"

This makes three definitive, incorrect, unsubstantiated, and libelous statements:

1. Christian Zionists are racist and anti-Semitic.

2. The "Patriot Movement" is racist and anti-Semitic.

3. It contains the pre-supposition that Chuck Missler would normally and naturally be assumed to be a racist anti-Semitic person, and is equivalent to someone saying:

"Although "X" is a minority, he is neither a rapist nor a thief."

This is clearly a racist bias, and contains the a hateful pre-supposition, that although the "X" does not possess the "Natural" tendencies of the group, the natural assumption should be that he would.

Obviously this is an offensive, slanderous, pointless statement which slanders three groups of people, as well as a living person, via the form of a back-handed "compliment". Further, there is no point (except bias) in characterizing the Patriot Movement as "far" right.

The other correction which you revised is a highly incomplete and innaccurate version of Chuck Missler's scientific case against evolution.

Missler's actual position is (very briefly, and vastly incomplete) position is summarized as follows:

Evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, the law of Entropy. Entropy states that things tend towards disorder. Examples: aging; the tendency of a clean house not to stay clean; the deterioration of new clothing into old clothing; the natural tendency of all machines, animals, batteries, solar systems, etc into disorder. In contrast to the laws of thermodynamics, evolution asserts that order will arise from disorder.

That evolutions depends on three innacurate assumptions: 1. Infinite. This number is a theoretical construct, and it does not exist in nature. Modern astrophysics (and notably Einstein) has determined that even space itself is finite.

2. Randomness. Again, this is a theorectical construct, as it does not exist in nature or reality. See Chaos Theory. "A billion monkeys with a billion typewriters will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespear (Evolution)" - Mash a keyboard for a while yourself. You will soon see that the result is indeed NOT random. Nor is the shape and structure in which salt crystals form - no matter how many times they form. Neither are the shape of bubbles and naturally occuring spheres random. Note: The attempt to try to generate truly random numbers is an ongoing and unconquered struggle for computer scientists.

3. Infinite time. Forever does not exist in the natural world. Modern science shows the world had a beginning (big bang), and that it will someday experience a "heat death". This validates the notion that the Universe has not been here "Forever". Further... Life on Earth, did NOT have an infinite amount of time to evolve. Assuming Earth is 6Bn years old, it is known that the first 2Bn years were sterile (the Earth was molten and had not cooled). Since that time, there have been only around 2.1 x 10^15 seconds in which terestrial life could have evolved. Missler then goes on to show the statistical probability of even a short one sentence line of text generated in morse code generating randomly (somewhere around one in 1.5x10^35). He expands this quite a bit as he shows the probability of a "random" string of base pairs (adenine (A) with thymine (T); guanine (G) with cytosine (C) in DNA; and thymine replaced by uracil (U) in RNA) is a multi-digit self-correcting digital code replicated millions of times over and over in rapid succession in even the simplest genetic string would be several billion orders of magnitude (of probability) greater than the afore mentioned 2.1 x 10^15 seconds timeframe in which evolutionists currently believe that life could conceivably have "randomly" formed.

Missler shows scientifically that there is no such thing as a "simple cell" (pre-requisite in modern evolution), and explains that evolution requires SPOTANEOUS evolution of hundreds of extremely complex inter-dependant systems without which an organism will die, and Missler shows also that it requires an automatic error-correcting manner of replicating a huge amount of data in fractions of a second in order to replicate. He also describes several animals and systems (the bombadier beetle which directs, produces, and controls a volatile controlled explosion is an excellent example) in which any evolutionary error in "natural selection" would have automatically resulted in the immediate death (and subsequent failure to reproduce - thereby denying the system any chance to perfect its system in the animal), and goes on to show how marvelously complex and biologically expensive systems such as the sonar of a dolphin offer absolutely zero genetic evolutionary advantages - and indeed are a significant burden - until the wholistically complete organ is at bare minimum rudimentarily functional. This tends to discount the notion of "trial and error" and mating/survival advantage being their source and cause.

Missler also goes on to show the FACT that many of the "Scientific" studies that evolution is based on are flawed. Ex: the study supposedly showing the generation of amino acids from lightening and naturally occuring hydrocarbons is manipulated by creating a protective atmosphere that did not and could not have existed. He also brings up the FACT that there are a great many intentional outright historic frauds in the search for "the missing link" http://www.google.com/search?q=Antropology%2C+anthropologic%2C+Frauds+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= , many constructing an entire organism out of a single shard of solitary fragmented bone.

Etc etc etc. The "Life doesn't generate in a peanut butter jar is a proof that evolution does not exist" IS a statement which was made by Missler, but it is BY FAR not a summation of his position.

When it is stated as the essential basis and summation of Missler's argument - as it is on this page - it is instead a straw man argument, either by a person completely unfamiliar with Missler's actual position, or as an intentionally malicious mischaracterization intended to discredit him. Either way, this deserves to be ammended.—Preceding unsigned comment added byThomasNast (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you are doing is showing that neither you or Missler understand evolutionary theory - and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to debate it in any case. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. I am NOT debating evolution. I am clarifying Missler's position. That you are emotionally involved in the validity and acceptance of evolution should cause you to question the basis on which you are making this decision. The issue is NOT whether you or I personally agree or disagree with Missler. The issue is accurately representing what Missler (The SUBJECT of this Wiki) himself believes.

As such, the ONLY issue is if Missler's views are being honestly, neutrally, and fairly characterized. As I have shown, through a proponderous (admitedly with perhaps an OVER propondance of evidence) clearly they have not. On this basis, I ask that my revision making this a more NEUTRAL (less controversial and less detailed) description of Missler's views be left as I originally revised it.

As this is basically a BLP complaint, I've raised it at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nephilim = Ancient astronauts[edit]

FYI,. I deleted a para about Missler believing in ancient astronauts to a mere footlink in Nephilim, in doing so I sidelined 3 sources attached which may or may not be WP:RS. If they belong anywhere it'd be here, but I'm not adding them to a BLP I know nothing about. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

We need to add content about his education - where he did undergrad and grad work. 71.212.60.44 (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Death announced on official twitter feed for Koinonia House https://twitter.com/KoinoniaHouse/status/991091090911514624 Date not given, but assumed to be 30 April, or 1 May if it happened during the night. The Timestamp is not shown in New Zealand time, which is where he died.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Missler&oldid=1220469043"