Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Intro Would Be Solid, but for one Misleading Statement

The intro has been altered recently, and it would be pretty solid and succinct except for a very misleading statement that makes it appear the main message of the Church was not about the "World Tomorrow" and the "Family of God" together comprising the "Gospel of the Kingdom of God", but instead about the Churchs' teaching concerning the identetities of the English speaking peoples in Bible prohesy. Though the book concerning the latter sold the most copies overall, the main message of the Church focussed on the "True Gospel." Note that the the connection between the Church and "the Mosaic law" (Armstrong called it "God's Law") was not due to a focus on ancient Israel or its modern identity but on the belief that those laws and festivals were universal truths for mankind-first revealed to Israel--and Church writings quoted the book of Acts and hisitorians who lived in the first century to show that even the Apostles and gentile converts of the first century are known to history as having kept the 'Mosaic Law"it (including the so-called Jewish Holy Days")

Here's the qoute in question: "The Church's doctrines and theological teachings, sometimes referred to by critics as Armstrongism, stemmed from his belief that the key to Bible interpretation was the knowledge that the British and American peoples were descended from the twelve tribes of ancient Israel [1], that the true church was a type of "New Testament Israel..."

Please note that the prophecies put forward concerning the modern identity of America and Britain were given as both "a warning to them to repent" and as "the strongest proof of the autrhority of the Bible" but not the core of the Gospel. Their Gospel teaching was that God was creating a family through mankind--reproducing literal offspring and that Utopia was on the eway with Christ's return. Much of the warning to the 'Israelite " nations was becasue they were to be punished first and most severly for their sins, and would be the first nations to repent.

67.80.157.45 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Curious changes

I made a number of factual edits to this article and cited sources throughout for verification, in some cases citing links to actual publications quoting Herbert Armstrong's writings. These contributions were intended to achieve the NPOV that Wikipedia claims to stand for. These were significant contributions to the sections "Armstrong's wife encounters Church of God (Seventh Day)," "Beginnings of Armstrong's Ministry," and "Radio and publishing." Within a day the sections were largely switched back to the way they read pre-edits, including various unsubstantiated claims. I again attempted to insert the edits today. There is no reason to vilify Herbert Armstrong, but it is evident that he made regular and significant claims and statements that elicit debate and disagreement, and that should not be neglected in a summary about his life and work. Supporters (and critics) can create their own sites to praise (or criticize) the man, but this article should look at both sides of the issue. Wilburweber 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wilburweber,

I believe in the Wikipedia good faith policy ( which means we assume another's changes or edits are done in a spirit of academic or scholarly fairness and objectivity). Because of the sensitive religious beliefs involved in such an article--as is the case with any article having to do with Herbert W. Armstrong--the good faith assumption is tempered with a grain of salt, as the history of these Wikipedia articles is that they have been used as platforms for religious bigotry, slander, ax-grinding from excommunicated members of the WCG, unfairness, silly but damaging innuendo, and of course lack of sholarly professionalism. I've spent months battling and cleaning them up. The version you felt the need to change had stood for eight months unchanged, unchallenged , and widely respected.

If you have the time, and you wish to add citations to passages that are already there, I certainly encourage you to do so--everything in the article is factual--only citations are lacking ( please remember that lack of citations is not grounds in Wikipedia to delete statements we don't like or feel a little uncomfortable with for whatever reason). If you wish to discuss openly with me specific content you have a problem with I have no problem with that--let's talk (let's realize this will amount to few if any legitimate or serious objections on your part if you in fact have inside knowledge of the subject and historical training). If you see something as NPOV, point it out and we can reword it or provide a citation to verify--or perhaps I will point you to the source and you can provide the citation. I can help scrutinize the quality of sources and the way they are presented becasue I have a history degree so I am experienced with that.

No one at Wikipedia need abide by the perceived definition of NPOV by some (hopefully not you) which holds that one must insert negativity into an article to somehow keep a balance--especially if it's a religious leader. These I removed from your edit. Typically these will appear in the form of minor tangential factoids that are meant to have a greater impact on the mind of the reader, through innuendo, than what those minor details simply reveal. Actually, their are many positive things Armstrong was involved in that are left out of the article you sought to edit, and were not there of course when I began cleaning it up--awards and humanitarian projects that certainly make him stand out as a religious leader. Question: Why did you not complain about the absence of those positive things he was involved in? Why did you not feel inclined to put them in? Your additions and subtractions were of a negative tone--sometimes neutral. Though I have no plans currently to flood the article with them, it can be said that the lack of those positive reference are a built in balancer--at least as the article was as of April, though those activities and relationships and honors received by HWA are legitimately relevant to an autobiographical article focussed on what made the man famous. Please note Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Mozart: it focuses on what made the man remarkable, not his personal life. Mozart and Armstrong are in encyclopedia's because their lives were noteworthy and unique, not because of their human frailties. If you want to address, and think you can prove, the presence of legitimate and clear pattern of endemic, widespread, legitimate hypocracy of attitude in his life-- if you can find it somehow (I have not)--you better bring it here first, address it directly, and provide the very finest source material (i.e objective sources which does not include WCG ministers who wrote books to defend why they: 1) took the church mainstream after Armstrong's death and 2) personally hoarded the 1 billion dollars of tithes and offerings that came into church coffers between 1986 and 1991 rather that put that money into the work (as did HWA) and the humanitarian projects Armstrong started). Wikipedia is not a platform for character assassination and innuendo.

References to a religious leader's mistakes or to personal problems that they had to overcome easily slide into appearing as attempts to expose some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of the leader, thereby appearing as an attempt at destroying their credibility, legacy and beliefs. At worst this can create the strong appearance of Wikipedia being used to launch a politically biased, secular salvo against Christianity in general. Whether the former or the latter was the underpinning motivation, this was taken to an extreme in the articles that were cleaned up in November and no form of that will be allowed to return, even to the smallest degree. Armstrong, though of course human and imperfect, was immensely respected by his wife of over 50 years in happy marriage, and certainly appeared to be admired and respected by those who had no personal agendas or distaste for his personal religious beliefs--everyone form Anwar Sadat, to the mayor of Jerusalem, to the King of Thailand, all of who he was very good friends with--just to mention a few dignitaries. His problems with is son were not personal but doctrinal and based on the behavior of his son which flouted church rules. Again, Wikipedia reputation is at stake and attempts to jam in inappropriate negativity and accusations or innuendo, falsely in the name of NPOV will not tolerated.

Wikipedia supported my efforts to eliminate the strong appearance of religious bigotry and, regardless of your intentions good or bad, we will not allow this kind of bigotry through unwarranted negativity and innuendo ("He married a woman 40 years his junior") to be slowly re-introduced through a gradual process. The wolves were scattered before and they will be again. Please answer the following question, as a token off good faith: Was it you who removed the reference in the Final Years section to the actual reason why Garner Ted's relationship with H.W. Armstrong "soured" as your edit put it? To those reading this discussion page, please note that the edit I was involved in listed the factual reason: he was excommunicated for sexual immorality, doctrinal rebellion, and willful insubordination. What was left by deliberate edit was a vague impression that they had a falling out--that Armstrong had possibly done him wrong or just couldn't establish a good relationship with his son (this from a man who preached the importance of family!) I have access to the letter Armstrong wrote his son excommunicating him--and of course, we can recognize such a document as source material of the highest order--a primary document with no hidden agenda--not meant originally to be seen by the public.

I kept as many of your changes as possible. Actually, your most innocent "contribution" as you put it, is too make the article unnecessarily long by Wikipedia standards--really by any encyclopedia standards in terms of necessity of content (i.e The many references to Church of God (Seventh Day) members Dugger and Dodd and their activities which have little or no relevance to Armstrong's life; Passages like the following: "Armstrong replied, 'the Bible says, thou Shalt Keep Sunday'"; also the detailed references to Darwin and the Scopes trial seem added superfluously almost as if to insert links to provide a secular refutation to Armstrong's beliefs on evolution--to counter the statement that his disagreement with the theory was not through Bible thumping but through his studies of science textbooks (both referenced in the article); and most of what you added to the beginning of the section dealing with HWA's conversion was superfluous.) I had left this excess there as an appeasement for now, and since then, you have attempted a revert to your full edit.

If you aim to assert the other changes, which are problematic in several instances, there is going to be a long a very hard battle. 69.115.162.235 Jebbrady

Superfluous Additions

Dear Wilburweber,

You referred in your posting to your having made "a number of factual edits with citations". The problem is, most all of them were either 1) innapropriately negative in a sensationalistic way, or 2) were aggregiously superfluous, thus making the article too long not to mention unprofessional in appearance (i.e. they had either too much detail or were even unrelated to Armstrong personally, like the lengthy and oddly frequent references to Dugger and Dodd's life after they wrote their book). Here are some of the passages, out of context of course, but they nevertheless can be judged by others fairly:

the following are tangantile or superfluous:

a) "By the time the book was published, Dugger and Dodd had led a group [Church of God 7th Day][4] that broke from Ora Runcorn's church but retained its Sabbatarian teachings; Herbert and Loma Armstrong had followed their lead. Dodd would eventually go on to become a founder of the Sacred Name Movement"[5].

b) "This was at a time when evolution was in the news thanks to the highly publicized Scopes Trial in Tennessee, for which a teacher was convicted of teaching evolution in the classroom alongside creationism."

c) "Armstrong preached his first sermon in 1928, and began contributing articles to the church's publication, The Bible Advocate. In 1931 he was ordained as a minister by the church. When Andrew Dugger led the breakaway Church of God 7th Day in 1933, Armstrong aligned with that organization, eventually being credentialed as a minister in 1934.[9]"

In addition to being longwinded, please note that the following passage contains an obviously biased, unsubstantiated statement accusing Armstrong--through innuendo--of stealing his ideas about the connection between ancient Israel and America/Britain from a single source written in 1905. Realize their have been over 50 books written on the subject since the year 1699 (when a Venetian wrote a book about it), and Armstrong referred to these sources as a whole. His views expressed in The U.S. and Britain in Prophecy focused on scriptural passages, while referring to many secular sources secondarily. Note than Armstrong, in his literature, frequently cited the works of others, as he did with Bible commentaries (when he agreed with them) to explain scripture. Here's the passage in question, and, again, it fits the pattern of superfluous text, marring the usefulness of the article--added in the Wilberweber edit:

"Armstrong would soon after express more disappointment when he approached the church's leadership with what he thought was a wonderful truth, in the form of a manuscript that he had been working on about the biblical identity of the American and British peoples in prophecy. He had been strongly influenced by author J.H. Allen's 1902 book, "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright." Armstrong would claim years later that various ministers of the church felt he had made compelling arguments for the case that the English-speaking peoples of the world -- primarily in Great Britain and the United States -- were, in effect, "modern Israel," but would not teach his theory to the church at large. It should also be noted that this was before the modern state of Israel was established in 1948."

Superfluous, tangential, and way too much text and detail in this next this passage; first note that the original made a much more succinct reference to Armstrong's later belief about who and what the Church of God (Seventh Day) was prophetically; Second, note that Holy Days were already mentioned prominently in the opening:

"The "church era" concept was not new; Adventist and Church of God ministers had discussed and debated it for years, and generally considered the modern church to be representative of the "Laodicean," or last, era described in Revelation.[10] Armstrong, however, claimed that the Laodicean era was yet to come; that the Church of God organizations with which he had affiliated represented the Sardis, or "dead," era; and that he would lead the era represented by the positive message to the church at Philadelphia. This teaching of church eras would further alienate his former colleagues and become another foundational principle of Armstrong's belief system...

...Finally, Armstrong contended that the Hebrew feast days outlined in the Old Testament were to be kept by the church today. He presented his material to the ministerial body of the Church of God 7th Day at a conference in Detroit, Mich., where it was rejected as unscriptural by a majority present.[11] Armstrong's insistence on certain doctrinal distinctives led to his ministerial credentials being revoked by the Church of God 7th Day in 1937.[12] Undeterred, Armstrong began holding Bible studies in and around Eugene, Oregon, and began to attract a small following."

--Another tangential reference to Dugger and or Dodd: "Just two years later, in 1949, the organization that Andrew Dugger had formed in 1933, and with which Herbert Armstrong had once aligned himself, returned to fellowship with the Church of God (Seventh Day). Dugger, however, formed a separate group based in Jerusalem, retaining the name Church of God 7th Day.[15]"

On a side note, please note that the term "sensationalism", used in the same section as the paragraph above, is highly lacking in NPOV. If you are going to make out of context, (correspondingly sensationalistic) references to him saying "Hitler is still alive" then where are the references to the outstanding journalistic standards of the Plain Truth--the quality and sophistication of it's global analysis, and all the correct predictions, as documented in an an special magazine issue of an offshoot church? (which I can provide a link to if you like). One reason why the statement is sensationalistic is because of the context: certainly other respected analysts have made overly confident assertions and were wrong--in recent times the media as a whole supported the WMD claims through their own independent fact finding, as did Germany, France etc.. As for Armstrong's assertion on Hitler,the context is it got ordinary people to read the his magazine which was written on a sophisticated geopolitical subjects. In other words, it just looks like more digging and clasping for negativity-a despicable pattern this article has a history of.

Thus we have the lions's share of your contributions. Your added citations were part of the superfluous text and did not support the article that had stood unchanged for eight months; the only exception is one citation which I am in fact grateful for: the Dugger and Dodd book I beleive you footnoted--previously it was only listed in the references section. These "citations" certainly do not justify a revert away from the succinct, focused, NPOV version which I brought back yesterday--in fact, they are a clear step down by any standard. Again, you have every opportunity to look up the appropriate citations for what was already there--I've seen the source material for every statement in the article, it's just a matter of digging up the passages in the literature and citing them. If you need help with that or have questions about where to look, please let me know.

69.115.162.235 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Response

I am a trained writer, editor and educator of many decades, with no affiliation with Herbert Armstrong's church or its offshoots (can you say that?), so lectures on "we assume another's changes or edits are done in a spirit of academic or sholarly (sic) fairness and obejctivity (sic)" or "let's realize this will amount to few if any legitimate or serious objections on your part if you in fact have inside knowledge of the subject and historical training" are astonishingly demeaning and, frankly, arrogant, and make one suspicious of your neutrality and motives. What I contributed were things of historic interest available from a variety of sources, all of which I cited, and which are relevant to the telling of this person's rather remarkable story. The article lacked such references, for the most part. You ask about the Garner Ted situation; however, it's intriguing that you simultaneously removed a factual, documented statement that Herbert Armstrong's ministerial credentials were revoked by the Church of God (7th Day). That was done, from all I have found, for doctrinal insubordination, but I did not state it that way. I instead carefully documented both his position on several doctrines, and the church's response, before including information about their decision. You prefer, "Armstrong would permanently cease to have contact with the headquarters ministry of the Church of God (Seventh Day)." More accurately, it was the offshoot (7th Day) organization that he broke with, and your wording implies that it was his choice. You don't know that, and neither do I, but we do know that his church took away his credentials. Does this fact not matter to you? If not, then what other facts don't matter to you? When I discovered that information, from what is basically a pro-Herbert Armstrong source (which I cited), it struck me as clarifying how and why he found it necessary to form his own church. I find that fascinating and an essential turning point in his life.

Reply from 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Your analysis is way off there. His stated reason for starting the church--verified by his actions over his life--was that he felt God was using him in some special way, and he planned to proclaim the gospel as he understood it to the largest audience possible. He also had irreconcilable differences with the Church of God (Seventh Day) ministry over his manuscript for what became later The U.S. and Britain in Prophecy--the Church of God leadership told him they would not publish it, though they believed it's merit. He said in his autobiography that he was bewildered by their reaction and he felt it had to be proclaimed. He also wondered why they had such limited knowledge of the gospel biblically as he felt he understood it, and he certainly was going to go on one way or another to proclaim it.

In this context, whether or not his ministerial privileges were revoked before he had the chance to quit is trivial at best, and misleading at worst.

Goodness, your above attacks on the current WCG leaders, for whom I have no feelings one way or the other, are startling. Why did you even find it necessary to go there? You said, "Wikipedia is not a platform for character assination (sic) and innuendo," but then claimed that these unidentified leaders "personally hoarded the 1 billion dollars of tithes and offerings that came into church coffers between 1986 and 1991 rather that put that money into the work (as did HWA) and the humantitarian (sic) projects Armstrong started." Is that not character assassination? Why no substantiation? And, why such a fan of what you assert that Armstrong did with the money? Where is your objectivity?

Reply from 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

As far as the “unsubstantiated” assertion by me on the talk page about the hoarding of 1 billion in tithe and offering money by the WCG leadership after Armstrong died, I would ask you to please read again my comments carefully. You will see that I mentioned the book Raising the Ruins, a book that is footnoted to the gills with references to source material gained in the court case versus the WCG, where a mountain of internal WCG emails, memo’s, published material, and financial statements had to be turned over to the PCG lawyers as part of the discovery process. Those do not lie, though people can be biased and people can lie. Read my postings on the book on other pages connected to Armstrong and the WCG.

To sum up for you what was revealed in the court case, the WCG leadership was extensively shown to have simulteneously planned to completely change the doctrines of the church and its overall involvement in humanitarian projects, and at the same time were demonstrably shown in the court case to have deliberately and systematically concealed the plans to make these sweeping changes--and then lied--also systematically--about the changes as they began to happen so that people thought nothing was wrong and continued to send in their tithes and offerings which the WCG leadership was happy to collect--all this between 1986 and 1991 (worht noting is the the "circumstantial" evidence that showed the planning of this was going on before Armstrong even died, and is overwhelming in its part). After that, people started to leave in droves, and the WCG leadership was of course left behind with the money, and no one knows where it went--there is nothing to show for it as I pointed out--they ceased the humanitarian projects and stopped publishing and distributing the literature for free, and fired employees. In fact, they even did a fire sale of the churches assets, including selling off the Ambassador Auditorium.

You’ll notice a strange lack of interest in that book as source material, despite the abundance of primary source documents it cites—normally a researches dream. Go to the discussing pages of the Joseph Tkach Senior article, as well as scanning this discussion page, ad you find several attempts on my part to stir up some discussion on that book, which came out last November--more than enough time to expect a major buzz of excitement among editors acting in good faith. Yet not a single reply--not a single comment from any of the editors who have "owned" these articles. Not one! No references or discussion anywhere! It's astounding. A Pile of internal WCG emails and memos that document every thought let alone action plans the leadership had from 1985 to the mid-nineties has been made available and no one here seems excited, or even want to bring it up, not respond to admonitions to discuss it. The fact that no one who edits these articles has made a single comment on or response to my numerous postings on this tremendous new source material, expounded on in Raising the Ruins through hundreds of footnotes, is all the evidence one really needs of a POV problem of religious discrimination in articles concerning H.W. Armstrong, though I have provided much more evidence on this page. Aren’t you interested in getting such fabulous source material? Again, it’s loaded with references to internal documents and finances that had to be exposed during the court case, and the WCG has certainly not sued them for slander or defamation of character—read the book yourself and you’ll see why: they’d get creamed.

End of Reply from 69.115.162.235 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I was seeking balance, not a battle, and that you would term it as such is disconcerting. Suit yourself, but this is in no way a balanced article, from all that I have learned and researched about this fascinating individual. So much for "sholarly professionalism," as you put it. Wilburweber 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my full reply below, where I explore what is and what is not "balance".

Third Party Observation

There appears to be quite a lack of NPOV going on here. While it is clear that user Jebbrady has quite a lot of background and probably affiliation at some time with one of Herbert Amrstrong's churches, the tact that user Wilburweber is taking is probably more dangerous to the wikipedia community. In reading through related articles and discussion pages linked within the article pages it appears your individual point of view rather then factual, or mutually presented points of view are becoming the norm. I would strongly urge for the sake of the community and not turning these into locked articles that you discuss potential edits on the discussion pages before arbitrarily making changes to the articles. It seems with all religious issues that this is problematic as people either have strong loyalties or perceived injustices. Conversation should be preferred to crusades.

Re: Third Party Observation

Stopped in after steering clear for a few weeks and discovered that someone finally chimed in, albeit in apparent opposition to the free contribution that Wikipedia stands for. Thanks for noting my "tact," although I suspect you were searching for another term. There is balance to the story of Herbert Armstrong, and there has been much contributed to articles about him and those organizations that stem from his church that is unnecessarily derogative and pejorative. But preferring soft-pedaling statements like he "ceased contact" with his previous church, rather than stating a simple fact (Yes, his ministerial credentials were revoked -- what of it? It led to him founding a church, did it not?), or deleting any reference to a second wife and their subsequent divorce, betray an apparent desire to avoid dealing with things that might be unpleasant. I have noticed that his son Garner Ted, founder of two churches that are apparently accepted within the Sabbatarian groups that derived from the WCG, is afforded no such decency. This is a peculiar and rather consistent dynamic within the most devoted Armstrong circles (HWA good, GTA bad), which is why I asked our kind editor if he/she might be among them. No matter. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

The anonymous writer of the "Third Party Observation" comment remained curiously silent on our editor's commentary about current WCG leaders. There is no proof that they "hoarded" billions of dollars. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, I really don't know. What I do know is that I would be sure to offer documentation if I were going to make such a statement.

By the way, around the same time I contributed here, I pieced together some edits to the Global Church of God article, based mostly on updates to be found in the Internet. You can look it up, if POV is your concern. (The article was flagged in Dec. 2006, long before my contributions. That has not yet been lifted.) The edits were done in the interest of accuracy, and are accurate, based on what I could find. Your implication that I would be on some sort of crusade where the WCG and its offshoots are concerned is indeed curious.Wilburweber 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as the “unsubstantiated” assertion by me on the talk page about the hoarding of 1 billion in tithe and offering money by the WCG leadership after Armstrong died, I would ask you to please read again my comments carefully. You will see that I mentioned the book Raising the Ruins, a book that is footnoted to the gills with references to source material gained in the court case versus the WCG, where a mountain of internal WCG emails, memo’s, published material, and financial statements had to be turned over to the PCG lawyers as part of the discovery process. Those do not lie, though people can be biased and people can lie. Read my postings on the book on other pages connected to Armstrong and the WCG.

To sum up for you what was revealed in the court case, the WCG leadership was extensively shown to have simulteneously planned to completely change the doctrines of the church and its overall involvement in humanitarian projects, and at the same time were demonstrably shown in the court case to have deliberately and systematically concealed the plans to make these sweeping changes--and then lied--also systematically--about the changes as they began to happen so that people thought nothing was wrong and continued to send in their tithes and offerings which the WCG leadership was happy to collect--all this between 1986 and 1991 (worht noting is the the "circumstantial" evidence that showed the planning of this was going on before Armstrong even died, and is overwhelming in its part). After that, people started to leave in droves, and the WCG leadership was of course left behind with the money, and no one knows where it went--there is nothing to show for it as I pointed out--they ceased the humanitarian projects and stopped publishing and distributing the literature for free, and fired employees. In fact, they even did a fire sale of the churches assets, including selling off the Ambassador Auditorium.

You’ll notice a strange lack of interest in that book as source material, despite the abundance of primary source documents it cites—normally a researches dream. Go to the discussing pages of the Joseph Tkach Senior article, as well as scanning this discussion page, ad you find several attempts on my part to stir up some discussion on that book, which came out last November--more than enough time to expect a major buzz of excitement among editors acting in good faith. Yet not a single reply--not a single comment from any of the editors who have "owned" these articles. Not one! No references or discussion anywhere! It's astounding. A Pile of internal WCG emails and memos that document every thought let alone action plans the leadership had from 1985 to the mid-nineties has been made available and no one here seems excited, or even want to bring it up, not respond to admonitions to discuss it. The fact that no one who edits these articles has made a single comment on or response to my numerous postings on this tremendous new source material, expounded on in Raising the Ruins through hundreds of footnotes, is all the evidence one really needs of a POV problem of religious discrimination in articles concerning H.W. Armstrong, though I have provided much more evidence on this page. Aren’t you interested in getting such fabulous source material? Again, it’s loaded with references to internal documents and finances that had to be exposed during the court case, and the WCG has certainly not sued them for slander or defamation of character—read the book yourself and you’ll see why: they’d get creamed. --19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Reply to Wilberweber

Dear Wilburwebber,

Before I begin please note, pasted for your review below, the strict standards of scholarship and NPOV integrity of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Use your imagination to see if this policy might in this case extend to H.W. Armstrong, considering there is an offshoot group of the WCG that has their college named after him, and that owns the copyrights to all his major books and booklets. That group seems to be increasing in profile--I think their television program is ranked third or fourth in ratings among U.S. religious broadcasts, and recently they've been advertising their book on the legacy of Armstrong (called Raising the Ruins) during Fox's O'Reilly factor on a nightly basis. Do you really think Wikipedia is going to take any chances with libel if they have to intervene?

I'll begin my reply by stating that I do not wish to come off as condescending or "arrogant" as you put it, but my "arrogant” preference to steer the discussion toward the "scholarly" and "professional" quality of the editing was ultimately vindicated by your recent accusation that I must have some conflict of interest connection to the material facts. Please realize your arguments will stand or fall according to profession editing standards for an encyclopedia and on nothing else, like it or not. Personal attacks against me only strengthen my argument, I believe. I do certainly know the Wikipedia community frowns upon direct personal attack as to a particular editor’s identity and standing relationship with the material facts—something I have not done to you and could have, given your focus on certain issues that are tangential to what is supposed to be a concise article on the life of H.W. Armstrong. I’ll leave it at that because you can discern my reference though few else would.

Also, a concerned individual who reads and edits in Wikipedia has every right to question the professional quality of the edits of this article. And I'll add that such a person can criticize the POV tone, without getting into the personal identity of a specific editor and challenging them on that. I have in fact made generalizations about clear bias in the overall editing in the past before I got involved here and with the WCG article, and make no apology for it. I have made references to the edits of an individual giving the article an overall appearance of religious bigotry—but I never directly attacked the person or brought up their identity and connection to the subject matter as an issue. Again, our arguments stand or fall on their own merit.

I will say that I've already taken the time to exhaustively expound on the issues at hand, but I’ll address a couple things.

You make references, line by line, of me taking out things you added, and you protest a couple instances where details you added were not honored, but replaced by “soft peddling” statements, lacking NPOV. Again, let me first say that, given the fact that the article had been laboriously cleaned up, and stood respected and unchallenged for many months, you might want to consider the appropriateness of you first explaining the merit and usefulness of your sweeping changes before you go on an all out attack against those who reverted it only partially to what was there before. Others had labored before you on this article with sincerity, and again, their efforts had stood respected and unchallenged for many months. Your boast that you brought in fully cited, factual material is disingenuous in the context of the fact that you only cited your own additions which as has been noted are problematic on other levels (And I'll discuss that further below), rather than add citations to what was already there and factual, but simply not cited for lack of time. In my previous post I invited you to help cite what was already there, but you have no comment on that or interest in it apparently. Instead you deleted large portions of what was there.

All this certainly doesn’t mean the article didn’t need improvement: for instance, at the time you came in with your edits, there was no reference to anything positive H.W. Armstrong had ever been involved in through the Church (humanitarian projects, friendships with world leaders, the world class concert series etc etc), and had been that way since when I first got involved back in October; your sweeping additions and edits to virtually every section somehow failed to correct that glaring omission, but instead added many details. Nevertheless I finally was motivated (and had the time) to correct that omission—after all, he was famous in the world precisely because of such things, and would not be in Wikipedia otherwise. A ridiculous omission really--I should have taken care of it sooner. You seem very intelligent and have written eloquently of objectivity, so I'm surprised you didn't help out there, haven't mentioned it, and haven't congratulated the editors for getting it in there.

As you know, the article had been cleaned up of heavy and ugly POV tone which was worse than simple POV, and you acknowledge that. That tone was suggestive of ‘Armstrong bashing”, and religious bigotry by extension; of course many people did not like his beliefs about Christianity and about modern education, so it is not surprising. But it is inappropriate as you noted, and it hurts the reputation of Wikipedia which many have labored to build up.

One way this heavy POV tone was manifested was the practice of cramming in trivial details—trivial by any encyclopedic standard (please see the article on Martin Luther) which were of a consistent negative tone and that created a misleading description of a man that many regard as successful, sincere, and honorable—including royalty and heads of state, and the ignoring of that favorable recognition by editors of this article is, frankly, a disgrace.

These negative sounding details reigned, which were filled to the brim with innuendo. For instance, “He married a woman forty years younger.” Wow, he must have been another hypocritical Christian religious leader, less immune to lust and shallowness than he let on, marrying such a vixen (he was of course already elderly himself and she pushing middle age, details left out both by you and the stewards of the intense bigotry of the past in this article.)

A historian’s responsibility is not limited to simply checking the facts and gathering them, he is bound by the obligation to choose which facts have the floor, knowing that the perception and understanding of the reader is greatly shifted by the inclusion or exclusion of them, and worse, can be easily manipulated by those unscrupulous enough to do so motivated by an axe to grind or worse, whether they admit it to themselves and or others or not.

Including a reference to "Armstrong having his ministerial credentials revoked” is problematic because is suggests scandalous, disgraceful behavior, yet at the same time, for such a short article, it is impractical and inappropriate to give the facts surrounding all the politics of that situation their full breathing space. Please read the last part of that sentence again about the lack of practicality. So it gets left out and I make no apology for that. Overall, your analysis is way off there for other reasons. His stated reason for starting the church--verified by his actions over his life--was that he felt God was using him in some special way, and he planned to proclaim the gospel as he understood it to the largest audience possible. He also had irreconcilable differences with the Church of God (Seventh Day) ministry over his manuscript for what became later The U.S. and Britain in Prophecy--the Church of God leadership told him they would not publish it, though they believed it's merit. He said in his autobiography that he was bewildered by their reaction and he felt it had to be proclaimed. He also wondered why they had such limited knowledge of the gospel biblically as he felt he understood it, and he certainly was going to go on one way or another to proclaim it.

Let me ask you something: Why the attention to negative details and innuendo, yet no references to what REALLY made him controversial to begin with? The article has a link to a page describing his teachings, but it certainly wouldn’t be wrong to bring a direct and fair treatment of him as a controversial figure into this article more. It could be a separate section. But there is nothing from you on this—nothing--just the negative, suggestive details crammed into the text, breaking up the flow, and an odd focus on the Church of God (Seventh Day). If your interested in creating a full, useful article that’s balanced and fair, why do you ignore the famous and controversial aspects of his beliefs and teachings that riled Christians and made him disliked by some—the beliefs that made him a noteworthy figure? It certainly would appear to a reasonable person that if you approached Armstrong in that fashion, you would be forced to deal with the facts in the open, conventionally, in an NPOV way, wouldn’t you? No passing digs filled with innuendo could occur there. Even the controversial details could be explored in a reasonable, balanced way there. The POV history of this article is that many editors think it is far better to launch indirect salvos, typified by negatively suggestive “facts”.

Again, please read encyclopedia articles on Mozart to get a feel for appropriate subject matter—start with a classic like Britannica. It focuses not on sensationalistic details like you desire to bring in, such as the age differential between Armstrong and his wife, but rather on what made the person of note in the first place—the reason why the figure was included in the encyclopedia at all. Again, your edits were not only awkward and tangential, you removed a lot of interesting material about the man, and instead put in POV material creating the strong appearance of Armstrong bashing/religious bigotry--and you don’t seem to get that, so there isn’t any need to talk about it further.

Though in Mozart's case it actually has in fact been universally established by scholarly authorities that he did in fact largely live a truly "scandalous" life (as opposed to Armstrong), especially for that time, you will find that article to be entirely focused on the unique activities, works and accomplishments that made him famous, influential, and interesting to begin with. It was his life's work that made him a subject of interest and study, and therefore is the very reason why in the first place he would be included at all in such an encyclopedia. Therefore, how much less appropriate is it to include unsubstantiated hearsay, from extremely venomous sources at that? I'm not saying you have done that--you may have--but others definitely have. And again, even items that are technically correct. I'll give two brief examples of ho these can and have been used in an inappropriate manner: First is the aforementioned references to the age of the woman he married after his first wife died, coupled with other attempts at innuendo. The other example is past brief additions referencing his lack of a college degree and reverses in his advertising business, while ignoring facts about his considerable successes in advertising, the circumstances surrounding his later reverses, and his impressive self education--something which anyone can see in his writings, manifested in his formidable knowledge of the arts, philosophy and history. Of course he evidently devoted his post-conversion life to education. So context makes a huge difference when it comes to POV. It should be added that these negatively toned "factual" additions were done by editors whose immediate edit history included nothing remotely "positive" in tone about the man's accomplishments at any point in his life, let alone in business or education. We need not go further about how easy it can be to tell what the spirit of an addition or deletion really is.

You had two basic ways you could have responded to the alterations on your massive edits, and like it or not the path you’ve chosen says a lot about whether the good faith assumption is still in effect toward you. You could have suggested to the editors a way we could bring those details in that would be both apropos for an article of such concise length, and yet fair in the context (that is, not appearing as passing digs or, more importantly, suggestive of more than what they actually signified in the original historical context of the surrounding events--analyzed from an honest, objective standpoint). Instead, you launched into accusations against those who altered your sweeping edits.

As far as the “unsubstantiated” assertion by me on the talk page about the hoarding of 1 billion in tithe money by the WCG leadership after Armstrong died, I would ask you to please read again my comments carefully. You will see that I mentioned the book Raising the Ruins, a book that is footnoted to the gills with references to source material gained in the court case versus the WCG, where a mountain of internal WCG emails, memo’s, published material, and financial statements had to be turned over to the PCG lawyers as part of the discovery process. Those do not lie, though people can be biased and people can lie. Read my postings on the book on other pages connected to Armstrong and the WCG. The fact that no one who edits these articles has made a single comment on or response to my numerous postings on the tremendous new source material, expounded on in Raising the Ruins through hundreds of footnotes, is all the evidence one really needs of a POV problem in the area of religious discrimination, though I have provided much more evidence on this page.

To sum up for you what was revealed in the court case, the WCG leadership was extensively shown to have simultaneously planned to completely change the doctrines of the church and its overall involvement in humanitarian projects, and at the same time were demonstrably shown in the court case to have deliberately and systematically concealed the plans to make these sweeping changes--and then lied--also systematically--about the changes as they began to happen so that people thought nothing was wrong and continued to send in their tithes and offerings which the WCG leadership was happy to collect--all this between 1986 and 1991 (worth noting is the the "circumstantial" evidence that showed the planning of this was going on before Armstrong even died, and is overwhelming in its part). After that, people started to leave in droves, and the WCG leadership was of course left behind with the money, and no one knows where it went--there is nothing to show for it as I pointed out--they ceased the humanitarian projects and stopped publishing and distributing the literature for free, and fired employees. In fact, they even did a fire sale of the churches assets, including selling off the Ambassador Auditorium.

You’ll notice a strange lack of interest in that book as source material, despite the abundance of primary source documents it cites—normally a researches dream. Go to the discussing pages of the Joseph Tkach Senior article, as well as scanning this discussion page, ad you find several attempts on my part to stir up some discussion on that book, which only came out last November. Yet not a single reply from any of the editors who have "owned" these articles. Not one! No references or discussion anywhere! It's astounding. Aren’t you interested in getting such fabulous source material? Again, it’s loaded with references to internal documents and finances that had to be exposed during the court case, and the WCG has certainly not sued them for slander or defamation of character—read the book yourself and you’ll see why: they’d get creamed.

Again, if you are anxious to get balance and all the facts in there, where were you when the article was in dire need of references to positive things about the man--the humanitarian projects, the positive and fascinating recognition from leaders around the world, and the contributions to the arts? What have you ever contributed to this article in that area?

I can’t and won't take the time to rebut and dismantle through logic every single line by line point you wish to bring up now or in the future. My overall characterization of the additions you made (and your deletes) has covered all bases. If you think there was one or two additions you made that don't fit the description I have given, then you'll find that I probably already left them in.

If you wish to carry on a back and forth on this matter further in the manner that you have to this point, you will find that I’ll not be responding any further. You can have the last word if you like.

Jebbrady 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Undo anon deletion of NPOV facts and citations

I have undone an anonymous edit which, without explanation, deleted sourced material regarding the beginnings of Armstrong's ministry, specifically the date of his first radio broadcast and the details of his adult baptism, ordination, and license to ministry. These were NPOV facts with sources, and are highly relevant to his biography. Without explanation, the deletion appears to be vandalism; but assuming good will, if there is a reasonable justification for removal, this is the place to discuss it.. -- Lisasmall 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just gone back in and undone deletion of family details and information from mainstream press obituaries. The man had four children, not two. He had two wives, not one. He married a divorcee contrary to his own rules for the World Church of God (which he reversed just prior to his marriage). These are NPOV facts. That the mainstream press took a negative view of him is also a fact worth presenting here if this is an encyclopedia entry about all aspects of the person and not a hagiography limited to only flattering material from sectarian sources. As above, this material was also deleted by someone anonymous, without summary explanation. -- Lisasmall 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read my posting below. I'll add to that this: You use the term "Reasonable justification", so I hope your reaction is reasonable to me saying that the citations in question were sub-standard (I discuss that further below of course).

Please note that that the "sourced material regarding the beginnings of Armstrong's ministry" were additions that showed no regard for the chronological flow of the article-not a minor point. If you are concernd about getting details about that part of his life right that's fine, but make sure you put them in where they belong please--it almost seems like you were in a rush to get to some of the edits involving citations #5-12. You said you were assuming good faith, so you I hope you realize your work will be judged by the same standard: a concern for accuaracy on minor deatails is nice, but POV or lack of it--and good faith--will be judged line by line, citation by citation, and a your noble atention to detail and fairness exibited there must continue.

On a lesser note--but still important--is the fact that the notion that he was baptized by a baptist minister is considered apocryphal--that battle has been waged here already. My efforts were not remotely vanadalism--it has taken up a couple hours of my time investigate the link that were put in, and I've spen many months cleraning POV tone in this article that had the strong appearance of religious bigotry. Jebbrady 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Hi, Jeb. I hope this resolves some of your concerns:

1. An editor who helps resolve conflicts on Wiki has responded below, pointing out that TIME is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. I added TIME and will be adding New York Times material because the talk page had suggested getting more mainstream sourcing.

2. The article does not have to be strictly chronological; like most biographies on Wiki, I chose to put additional family details in the section which had already outlined half his family. I am puzzled about why his two daughters are acceptable there, but his two sons are not; likewise why one marriage is mentioned, but the second marriage has been twice deleted. Marriages, births, deaths, and continuing family associations (such as his professional relationships with his son and his son-in-law) are standard bio details.

3. His baptism and ordination info is not pejorative so I don't understand the objection. I sourced the account of his Baptist baptism; if you have a source which contradicts it, that information could be added with language reflecting that there is disagreement among the sources about it.

4. As to NPOV, I have no bias for or against Armstrong. I never heard of him until two days ago, and worked on the article because I found it lacking in basic bio info when I first looked him up. When I went to mainstream sources and to the internet in general, I realized a great deal of information was missing from the Wiki piece, even such basics as his uncontroversial family details and public obituary, and my edits are meant to address that. -- Lisasmall 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Jebbrady 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Hi Lisa, Thank you for acknowledging the potential for POV by using the term "pejorative". But the statement about being baptized by a baptist minister is pejorative in the classic mold of this article's unsavory history--and I'll assume you don't understand that because you are admittedly not familiar with his actual literature. Secondly, realize he makes no mention of it in his own autobiography--you should read it.

If you can't see the POV appearance in this...

"TIME Magazine, a mainstream weekly in the United States, referred to Armstrong's marriage and divorce in harsh terms both in announcing the filing,[10] and in his obituary.[11]

"In both items, TIME referred to Armstrong as "autocratic" and in the obituary, expanded their criticism, summing up his legacy in the harshest terms and disregarding any good works in his lifetime of ministry:

...Armstrong taught that Christians should deny the Trinity, shun medical care (though he used it as his own health deteriorated) and that remarried members should divorce their second spouses and rejoin their first (though he repealed that dictum in 1976 and a year later married a divorcée). Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church.[11]"

...then there's gonna be a problem.

(added 78/31/2007 by Jebbrady 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady: Please note that Armstrong may have had the marriage annulled to square his life with church rules/biblical teaching as he had understood them. I'm doing additional research to get the details. If this is true, then it only exposes the lack of concern for accuracy and intellectual honesty with recent additions, not to mention the shoddy reporting of the Time obituary writers--who only gave a couple dozen words to each obituary and crammed in Armstrong's with many others--not exactly scholarly research.

And I'm in for the long hall, rain or shine. Please read again my suggestion about a section devoted to "controversy". It's either that or no go for me, and I'm confident I will be able to make a clear, lucid, and effective argument for that all the way down the line, to whomemver at Wikipedia I have to. In that forum, you and I will literally be forced to be fair and honest, and the full facts about the man can have their place in the sun properly.

You may mistakenly think you are somehow compensating for the POV tone you edits brought by the use of citations. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry. The web is full of vitriol and unsubstantiated slander on the man, haven't you noticed? Doesn't that bother your conscience? (As an example, the description of his divorce being "acrimonious" and "bitter" came from the web sources, and I can tell you straitaway it is highly questionable: it had been common knowledge that he simply gave her whatever material possessions she asked for to end the matter as quickly and painlessly as possible. I'll be doing some fact checking on that. I'm guessing it was in fact painful and bitter for him personally, but that is not the same as what your edit was saying.)

Please read again my statement below concerning a section on the tumultuous events of his life and the controversial aspects of the man and his beliefs. Jebbrady

H.W. Armstrong & Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Please note, posted for everyone's review below, the strict standards of scholarship and NPOV integrity of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (yes I realize H.W. Armstrong is dead).

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Of course you can use your imagination to see if this policy might in practice, in this case, extend to H.W. Armstrong, considering there is an offshoot group of the WCG that has their college named after him, and that owns the copyrights to all his major books and booklets. That group seems to be increasing in profile--I think their television program is ranked third or fourth in ratings among U.S. religious broadcasts, and recently they've been advertising their book on the legacy of Armstrong (called Raising the Ruins) during Fox's O'Reilly factor on a nightly basis. Do you really think Wikipedia is going to take any chances with libel if they have to intervene? This group has already gone to court once to "revive (read "protect") the legacy of Herbert W. Armstrong."

Editors ought to think twice before they present any unsubstantiated charges against the man in any article or discussion page here. Also be advised that citations of web sources without scholarly credentials, a practice not even accepted in American Universities (I know because I have degree in history), will be deleted from this article along with the antecedent text.

Edits with an unprofessional, POV tone that try to overcome that by citing mainstream sources like Time magazine, a publication which--lets be frank--has a well known, easily observed political and social bias will be regarded in the same way. Citations are supposed to be sincere attempts to improve the credibility of an article and to ensure accuracy. To uses them disingenuously with an ax to grind is against everything that Wikipedia stands for and If I catch anyone doing it with any article relating to religion, including any article about Armstrong, I will immediately seek to get that editor blocked.

If an editor wants to bring in material facts about a biographical subject that reveals or are legitimately suggestive of flaws in that person, it will be done in a respectful, even handed tone, mimicking the professionalism of Encyclopedia Britannica-- especially when it’s a religious figure like Herbert Armstrong who had beliefs that not everyone liked. It should be put in a separate section entitled “Controversy” or something like it. The building of that section will be along process so put you seat belts on. There the controversy could be explored from all angles, in an even handed manner as opposed to tossing of barbs which obviously hurts the reputation of Wikipedia.

A lack of professionalism, and the strong appearance to any objective observer of flagrant religious bigotry, axes to grind, and the spirit of suspicion that has been all too common in the past with articles involving Armstrong, and again, this damages Wikipedia’s reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebbrady (talk • contribs) 21 July 2007

Time is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Andre (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply from 69.115.162.235 06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Is that right? Last time I checked, Wikipedia was interested in raising the bar on its standards--and I truly empathize with the people at Wikipedia who are trying to do just that. I tip my hat to them. The effort can also start with Time when it comes to citing them on religious and social issues. It's hard to take Time seriously when they describe WCG members under Armstrong's leadership this way: "Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church." Please read the full article on Armstrong here. How did Time manage to not find a single positive or interesting thing to say about the man? He was an interesting person with interesting views on the Bible! It's really remarkable at best and kind of pitiful really. It's almost childish, and I'm pretty troubled that people can't or won't see the POV in such a publication going back years. Let's at least be honest with ourselves and each other about it.

If any Wikipedia editor cares to debate here the appropriatenes of relying on Time magazine when it comes to American religious groups (read "Christians"), the Bible, or social issues, they'll get their clock cleaned.

Andre, thank you. Anonymous, please see the section above ("Undo anon deletions") in which Jebbrady raised some of the same issues you have, so no need to re-type them here. To address your other concerns:

1. As you note, Armstrong is dead. Under American law, the dead cannot be libeled, so Wiki would have no worries on that score, even if the information added was inaccurate.

2. However, the info added was accurate and was heavily sourced, including TIME as a mainstream source per the suggestion of an earlier discussion on this talk page. It is not appropriate to remove sourced factual information from a bio. If there are other sources which contradict the information, they can be added to the article to indicate that there is conflict among the sources, but the initial material should remain.

3. As to controversy, it's not clear to me what you mean, because the material I added did not dispute or engage his beliefs at all. Indicating that he and his beliefs were considered controversial enough to be disparaged in a mainstream obituary is reporting a fact. Reporting that his sincerity was questioned by such a pervasive nationwide mainstream news source is not, itself, an attack. It is a fact about his life as a public figure, and should be included.

I hope this discussion, and the answer to Jebbrady above, helps resolve some of your concerns. -- Lisasmall 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisa,

You are politely obstinate, and have not replied to my comments--you are talking past them. Can you please address the issue of POV tone, and also the issue of citing web sources--something you have no idea of the accuracy of? Even college students don't do that. If you care about the legitimacy and reputation of Wikipedia, you would express more concern about my objections to these types of sources, and you have not. The web has been full of websites devoted to vitriol against the man, filled with unsubstantiated trash often spewed out by excommunicated members who were put out for breaking rules or ethical failings. Doesn't that concern you at all--doesn't that bother your conscience as a an editor or even (gulp) a scholar? You have no comment on that after two postings? (now, coincidently, there are websites filled with vitriol toward the church that owns the copyrights to his literature). Let's be intellectually honest--let's please do that. If you really honestly think in your heart of hearts that the Time passage is "factual" and worthy, then please break down each fact for me in your reply. I expect an intelligent response.

If you won't address my specific points, then we have nothing to talk about from here on out.

Time as a reliable source doesn't mean we report its POVs as fact, we just report on them. I think Lisasmall did this in a satisfactory manner. "Time reported... Time said..." etc. We do not make judgments on whether those are all true statements, we just relate that Time said them. Andre (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Andre

Wikipedia absolutely needs third parties and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Please reread this addition by the editor in question citing Time, emphasis mine:

"In both items, TIME referred to Armstrong as "autocratic" and in the obituary, expanded their criticism, summing up his legacy in the harshest terms and disregarding any good works in his lifetime of ministry..."

Please realize the context is that the man actually did have some "good works": he was widely respected and honored by heads of state around the world (read the article [Wikipedia on Armstrong--it's well cited on that])--many of who were close personal friends like the universally loved and respected King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand and Anwar Sadat. After a second more careful read, I fully expect a reasonable and intelligent person (i.e third party) to at least align his comments more with what I've concluded: that that set-up for the Time quote was amazingly over the top at best and, at worst, extremely inappropriate in tone (i.e. derogatory, patronizing, misleading, disrespectful--and dare I say editorially childish?) especially when compared with Encyclopedia Britanica's neutral tone and relative professionalism (Please read, if possible, their article on Peter Waldo, a controversial medieval Christian leader whose non-mainstream church has a historical connection to Armstrong's church and teachings).

In terms of Wikipedia, a reasonable person will not casually dismiss my reference to Britanica's standards--or be nonchalant about striving for them--given the very public problems Wikipedia has had which have embarrassed all of us. Again I respect your comments and efforts, but your view was expressed in a way that betrayed a lack of awareness of the context, which is Armstrong's actual life, critics, and accomplishments, and I think third parties, if they are going to be truly fair about it, should not agree to take on the task unless they have the time to familiarize themselves with the subject matter before commenting.

Continuing, she quotes Time directly:

"... Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church[11] (emphasis mine)."

To understand why people knowledgeable on the subject of Armstrong would object to the tone and even the professional quality of such a citation, please understand the context by letting me give you a little background.

The editor had already implied that Armstrong had used his wife's death to squeeze more money out of his members. If an encyclopedia editor is going to press into an article their personal analysis, it had better be based on a basic, minimal knowledge of the subject. That may at first sound harsh, but consider the millions of dollars in tithes and offerings the Church abstained from collecting through the famous and unique non-open door policy for church membership, which Armstrong enforced throughout the almost 30 years of personal poverty when the church was tiny (from 1933 to the early sixties). The many thousands of people who called the church to express their desire to attend it can testify that they were told about this policy, and that a minister would eventually contact them to see if they read and understood the literature thoroughly. Many people would become offended and never come back--perhaps thousands. Armstrong did his utmost to make sure the ministry did not jump the gun with inviting people during this process. Many were rejected because they didn't agree with doctrine and preferred their own. The non-open door policy teaching was based on a many scriptures referred to almost ubiquitously in Armstrong's literature--especially John 6:44--where Jesus was quoted by John saying "no man can come to me except the Father draw him." This obviously was the opposite of trying to gain members to enlarge the financial coffers. Further, all who attended, rich or poor, did it voluntarily and almost had to plow their way in, as indicated. Lastly, people of wealth--architects, businessmen, and other professionals were routinely given the boot for "causing divisions" or for not adhering to the moral teachings and standards of the Church, thus costing the church, in each case, thousands of dollars per year in the lost tithes and offerings referred to by lisasmall. Of course a cursory study of the current Wikipedia article could have revealed to all that this money was spent on sending out tens of millions of copies of the churches literature free of charge (5 million copies of The United States ans Britain in Prophecy alone), as well as on major humanitarian projects around the world that garnered the attention of more than a few heads of state (combating illiteracy etc)to name a just few expenses--see the article.

With the above background in mind now, please scroll back and read her quote again, and see if still strikes you that her "reporting" on what Time said was done in a "satisfactory manner".

I trust it will strike you differently. And again, those beliefs and policies that hindered the churches own income were common knowledge to the public--his TV show had ratings that at times surpassed This Week With David Brinkley.

That scripture and many others that founded the non-open door policy were also the basis for a further unique teaching that dramatically lessoned income: Armstrong openly and consistently rejected the idea of evangelizing crusades or philosophies to convert the masses so popular in Christian churches. He rejected this vigorously and passionately--both in word and, in my estimation as the evidence indicates, in deed--and in fact the concept was central to the gospel message he brought: that God was going to save all who ever lived at a later time still in the future--that man's current civilization has been allowed by God almost as an "aversion therapy" for a mankind that doesn't yet really know God.

ThisTime reference, if I had left it in, would tend to suggest to everyone who has ever read Armstrong's literature or who even inquired about joining Armstrong's Church--thousands of which use Wikipedia--(and many other people)that Wikipedia apparently has no long term checks on the practice of citing "legitimate mainstream sources" which evidently lack--or willfully reject--even basic knowledge of the subject. I don't want to believe that and I had been under the impression that such was not the case, so my morale is hanging in the balance here.

Can you also consider, when it comes to "reporting" on what a publication news source said, that in lisasmall's case, it was not done in a tone of exploring the issue from all angles, it tone was unmistakably loaded, trying desperately to lend credence to the insinuation that Armstrong was a corrupt religious charlatan out for money and nothing else, and resembled that of a trial attorney using as evidence to support a position--in this case, a hostile one. Read the passage again to get the context--it didn't remotely attempt to use Time as a mere aid in exploring all the angles and perspectives--it was making an argument against the man, period.

To conclude, Winston Churchill told people in Great Britain throughout the mid to late 1930's that they either had to fight Hitler then or die as a nation later. Really, what we have seen with Herbert Armstrong in America is that, as with Winston Churchill in Great Britain, when people don't like a strong message but can't or won't confront the actual message according to knowledge, objectively, and reason, they will often simply attack the messengerviciously in the absence of reason and sound mindedness. I see a hysterical quality in what lisasmall tried to add to the article, and I regret that other may not be able to. Wikipedia really should ruthlessly police that in its ranks.

Describing lisasmall's use of Time as satisfactory is pretty much rewarding ax-to-grind hysteria (or the strong appearance of that--equally damaging to Wikipedia) at the expense of encouraging editors to have subject knowledge and reasononed common sense underpinning their approach.

Please understand I appreciate the fact that it's a big subject and you were sort of dropped into the middle of it out of nowhere, and your objectivity is appreciated. Cheers.

69.115.162.235 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Andre, thank you for your accurate description of the purpose of the TIME quote. It was provided as an essential part of a biographical article, demonstrating the POV of a major mainstream publication. Thank you again for affirming that TIME is a Wiki-acceptable reliable source. Jebbrady, courtesy is required of us all as part of the WP:CIVIL policy. It is a rule, not a tactic. Also, in the name of courtesy and clarity, I ask that you respect the Wiki talk page conventions of not putting your comments all in bold (it's an inappropriate way to dominate the page, and it is very hard for some people to read) and of using the proper indentations to make it easier for readers to follow conversations. The first person to post uses no colon. The second person to write precedes their remark by a single colon. The next person, if they are commenting on the first, uses only a single colon. Their comment will have the same left margin as the second person. But if they are responding to what the second person said, two colons are needed to make the thread clear — even if the response is coming from the first person who started the thread. Again, this isn't just courtesy; it's also for clarity. If you look above, you'll see that your "Reply to Andre" should not be bold, and should have been preceded by a single colon (for each paragraph) to make it easier to distinguish from Andre's remark, and definitely, like all talk page comments, should have been signed by the use of four tildes: ~~~~ which will automatically provide a signature like mine, with name and date. Thank you in advance for observing these courtesies and conventions in future posts. -- Lisasmall 19:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, my intent was purely to distinguish postings, and I had not before seen examples quite like what you suggested, which I have now adopted (see above). It definitely gets the job done. But if this discussion page is being dominated, it has nothing to do with bold face type. And the debate is on record for all to see--just where I want it, bold face type or regular. Works for me.

Thank you. The issue of signing your comments is still important, though, even with the colons. -- Lisasmall 22:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine quote: POV citing POV?

Hi Lisa, Thank you for ackowledging the potential for POV by using the term "pejorative". But the statement about being baptized by a baptist minister is pejorative in the classic mold of this article's unsavory history--and I'll assume you don't understand that because you are admittedly not familiar with his actual literature. Secondly, realize he makes no mention of it in his own autobiography--you should read it.

If you can't see the POV appearance in this...

"TIME Magazine, a mainstream weekly in the United States, referred to Armstrong's marriage and divorce in harsh terms both in announcing the filing,[10] and in his obituary.[11]

"In both items, TIME referred to Armstrong as "autocratic" and in the obituary, expanded their criticism, summing up his legacy in the harshest terms and disregarding any good works in his lifetime of ministry:

...Armstrong taught that Christians should deny the Trinity, shun medical care (though he used it as his own health deteriorated) and that remarried members should divorce their second spouses and rejoin their first (though he repealed that dictum in 1976 and a year later married a divorcée). Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church.[11]"

...then there's gonna be a problem. I'm in for this pending battle for the long hall, rain or shine. The tone is filled with suspicion and a weird, eerie disrespect.More importantly, Though I am not familiar with the timing of his developing relationship with his second wife, the other two assertions by Time will be exposed as an example of poor fact checking at best. The last statement, insinuating he took advantage of the poor to line his pockets is, frankly, beyond the pale in terms of ignorance and poor journalism, as will be shown (see discussion further down the page). Wikipedia has far more rigorous checks once administrators get involved with an article, and of that we can all be thankful, right?

Please read again my suggestion about a section devoted to "controversy". It's either that or no go for me, and I'm confident I will be able to make a clear, lucid, and effective argument for that all the way down the line, to whomever at Wikipedia I have to. In that forum, you and I will literally be forced to be fair and honest, and the full facts about the man can have their place in the sun properly.

You may mistakenly think you are somehow compensating for the POV tone in your edits by bringing in citations. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry. The web is full of vitriol and unsubstantiated slander on the man, haven't you noticed? Doesn't that bother your conscience? (As an example, the description of his divorce being "acrimonious" and "bitter" came from three web sources, and I can tell you straightaway it is highly questionable: it had been common knowledge that he simply gave her whatever material possessions she asked for to end the matter as quickly and painlessly as possible. I'll be doing some fact checking on that (I'm guessing it was in fact painful and bitter for him personally, but that is not the same as what your edit was saying.)

Please read again my statement below concerning a section on the tumultuous events of his life and the controversial aspects of the man and his beliefs.

New Section Entitled "Controversy"

If an editor wants to bring in material facts about a biographical subject that reveals flaws-- or are legitimately suggestive of flaws in that person, it must be done in a respectful, even handed tone, mimicking the professionalism of Encyclopedia Britannica-- especially when it’s a religious figure like Herbert Armstrong who had beliefs that not everyone liked. It should be put in a separate section entitled “Controversy” or something like it. The building of that section will be along process so put you seat belts on. There the controversy could be explored from all angles, in an even handed manner as opposed to the tossing of barbs--something that obviously injurious to the reputation of Wikipedia.

Lisa,

Your failure to directly address my concerns--despite your overly polite references to "my concerns", hopefully not to curry favor with the staff--is not a good faith indicator. I've dealt with the overwhelming appearance of religious bigotry in this article before,and I confidently expect the same result. Do you really think Wikipedia wants to become known as a platform for unprofessional sourcing and religion bashing?

Unsourced material

A large amount of the material in this article lacks references. I have tagged these sections accordingly. Unless sources are forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, that material will be deleted from the article, and moved to talk page. Better to have a short, well-sourced article until that time in which editors can find sources to expand upon it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From 69.115.162.235 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)jebbrady

Dear Jossi,

If you please would, can you provide a timetable to further specify what you man by a "reasonable" period of time? My particular contributions to the current article were from what I had known I had read--common knowledge for many people familiar with the subject--but apparently no one (including myself) has had the time to actually track down the page number and thus provide a citation--something which will could well take an enormous amount off time. In terms of relating to me a reasonable timetable, I ask you be liberal, and I appeal to your sense of fairness. Please advise

I just want to address one other issue and it takes a little bit of explaining, so please bare with me:

I love Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that wholesale deletions and a subsequent rebuild will invite an attempt by some--who have been scattered to the four corners--to come back and try to return this article into what it was prior to October 2006, which was a flagrant platform for "Armstrong bashing" based on uncited, unsubstantiated hysteria—much of which had been laughed out of court or been disproved years prior. The description I put forth (“Armstrong bashing”) veered further into the strong appearance of religious bigotry and prejudice when we consider that the article in those days had scrupulously avoided sharing with the public anything interesting about his beliefs or a single mention of anything remotely positive he had ever done through his church--through his beliefs. Certainly a brief reference could have been made to balance things just a little: the awards and accolades he had received from world leaders due to his humanitarian projects and support for the arts, or perhaps his role as a liberal arts educator who focused curriculum on character development.

This all created the strong, obvious appearance of religious discrimination. As someone who has used Wikipedia frequently and who respected it--and still does--I was shocked and embarrassed.

The current article could use a section looking at him as a figure of controversy, but for Wikipedia, I submit to you that it is far preferable to what was there prior to the changes I helped to bring in October 2006.

To be more specific, the article prior to October 2006 had featured heavily in the cramming in--often apropos of nothing in the context--of unsubstantiated accusations without citations. I can guess much of it came from hearsay spouted by the infamous websites which of course the authors were embarrassed to cite, and for good reason. Besides the fact that college students aren't even allowed to cite web sources as a whole, the websites discussing Armstrong are infamous for being painfully less interested with scholarly checks, research, or sense of responsibility than with wielding a vitriolic ax to grind. Why such a "vitriolic" ax to grind? Though certainly there are many people who strongly dislike Armstrong's views on religion and society, these websites are run mostly if not exclusively by people who were excommunicated members booted out of his Church for reasons apparently all or most the members agreed were appropriate: for flouting biblical moral teachings, standards, or due to doctrinal disagreement. This phenomenon has a history: before the existence of the internet, one embittered group of five ex-members during the seventies made accusations against the church that led to a court controversy in California, but it was based on anger at being kicked out of the church, and the accusations were thrown out of court.

My major contribution was to remove negative POV: unsubstantiated accusations, apocryphal hearsay, and silly innuendo. The problem now--popping up during the last 24 hours--seems to be that a major, respected Wikipedia is making additions citing the kinds of web sources of the kind just mentioned, as well as a mainstream source whose characterization of Armstrong wasn't befitting professional journalism by any standard--even today’s standards. I proposed a NPOV way of addressing controversy surrounding H.W. Armstrong and have not heard back from this editor. I do realize the editor in question has their personal biases as all people do, but citing web sources in general, not to mention the vicious websites devoted to Armstrong--again, many if not all of which are run by people excommunicated from his church for flouting biblical moral teachings, standards, or due to doctrinal disagreement.

I submit to you that we must be very careful to not open any doors for this article to return to what it has been in the past. It would bring further needless battles and consume enormous amounts fo time time. Cheers.

69.115.162.235 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

(There is no need to cross post. Thanks) If you please would, can you provide a timetable to further specify what you man by a "reasonable" period of time? Would a couple of weeks be enough? Material that is not sourced, cannot remain in an article for long, if challenged. Better to have a short article that is well referenced, than a long article that is poorly referenced. Move the material that has no sources to talk, and take your time in sourcing and re-adding later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted on my progress, but I was originally looking for a month or better, so if you don't mind please give three weeks or so.

Also if you would, post a warning a couple days before you remove a section. As you know, the sudden vacuum may tend to invite in editors from the wild causing further problems--it's a highly charged subject. I want to finish the whole thing before time runs out, because I think the article has a good chronological balance and contains the things that made the man interesting. In the meantime, please block and hold off discussion of a putting up a section on "controversy" so I can focus.

On a minor final note, I should add that the material in there prior to 7-20 was not actually challenged by Lisasmall on this page (I challenged her material), and though I know the discussion page is voluminous here and you don't have time to scour it, there have been no challenges of the accuracy of the content of the current article since it was developed back in October-January as far I know--unless I somehow missed something but I don't think so.

I Hope you didn't mind my original posting being so long--but it's a complicated, touchy issue in one sense. 69.115.162.235 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Hi guys - hope you don't mind that I made some minor edits and added a bit of source material. The only thing in the article that "bugs" me is the third paragraph under "Armstrong's wife encounters Church of God (Seventh Day)", where the WCG's former "history" of itself is expounded. I changed the wording slightly because the groups linked to (Waldensians, Lollards, Bogomils, et al) do not appear to share the doctrinal similarity cited in the article for the most part - and historical research conducted by non-WCG-affiliated writers has not verified the old Dugger/Hoeh claims, to my knowledge. I did not, however, explicitly state that in my edit. Perhaps the paragraph needs to be rewritten to clear up the apparent contradiction? - jere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 July 2007.

≈ jossi ≈, I had material with mainstream sources in the article which was deleted, twice, by a user who appears to be violating WP:OWN and other WP policies. (See "invite in editors from the wild" disparagement above.) In the interest of courtesy, and of avoiding a revert war, I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time until that user completes his edits, and then try again to get the mainstream-sourced information back in. That won't be necessary if the user in question chooses to put the missing information (numbers of children, numbers of marriages, etc.) back in place with the appropriate citations on his own, as well as the section he proposed on "Controversy" which ought include any notorious litigation (no matter how the case concluded), the lapse into receivership, etc. However, the "Controvesy" section should not be used as a burying ground for inconvenient truths. Exemplia gratia: that Armstrong was divorced is a fact, and belongs in the typical family background section of any biographical article, not in a "Controversy" section. — Lisasmall 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment on my activities with this article and the WP:OWN policy: No debate is necessary here. My efforts stand on their own and they are there in the open for everyone to see both on this discussion page, and in the edit history, all of which reveals whether I'm protecting the article or trying to write it unilaterally.

Lisa,

Please put the NPOV information back in that you had about his daughters.

But do you do you think you might muster up the courage to address any of the points I made so far?

P.S I haven't decided yet, but I may take copy some of my comments thus far on your contributions and your comments into small sections with headings to make them more visible. I think my long detailed responses are a little too much to digest at one time. I probably should break it down and make it more visible--and if you don't mind, I'll cut and paste some of your comments where appropriate.

P.P.S. Armstrong gave his wife tremendous credit in his autobiography in helping him with his projects as far as input and counsel. She played a major role in other ways--especially his conversion, including a truly fascinating incident she was reportedly involved in in Chicago. The article doesn't have much about their marriage or her role in his life. The autobiography is available free online http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=book&id=1423

Jebbrady 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jebbrady, Thank you for asking, but I do mind if you alter or edit my comments on this page in any way at all. You may repeat portions of my remarks, of course, but do not break apart, relocate, or otherwise alter my original comments on this talk page as I wrote them. However, in the article itself, you can please feel free to restore the material about the daughters, the wife's middle name, etc., which I had added and you deleted. I appreciate the invitation to do this myself, but I know you're actively working on a rewrite right now, so I'll hang back a reasonable amount of time until you're done to help keep the edit record clear. Thanks also for breaking up your long remarks to make them easier to read & respond to. -- Lisasmall 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to understand the intent of my question. Your comments, "as is", lined up in a concise way against the strong points presented from others on this page is all that is needed. Down the road it may be necessary. 208.253.158.36 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

The issue is very simple: In a week or so, all material that is unsourced or poorly sourced will be deleted from this article and moved to talk page. When sources are found for the deleted material, it can be re-added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Reference to Pyramidology

I removed the reference to Armstrong studying into Pyramidology.

1)Armstrong never mentioned such a subject or anything relating to it in any book or booklet. Though the Church cautiously supported the tradition that Job was involved in constructing the Pyramid at Giza, that obviously is not part of pyramidolgy.

2) The source cited was Joseph Tkach book Transformed by Truth. A reading of his book shows he was not ever in a position to know what Armstrong ever studied. He was born several decades after original delving into the Bible.

3) Tkach was exposed as an unreliable witness to events in general in the court case with the PCG, as the court records show he sytematically lied to the WCG members about the doctrinal transformation as it was happening, though former members can testify just as easily the internal emails and memos. He has their tithes and offerings now.

Care to debate this? Read Rasing the Ruins, which is based on the internal documents of the current WCG leadership. I consider the PCG to have a natural bias obviously, but not a damaging one when you consider that court documents are not biased.

Jebbrady 06:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Citation from Transformed By Truth was actually a quote from a letter written to Herbert Armstrong in 1927, which I opted to include simply to indicate the sheer broadness of Armstrong's study in question (for example, he read Darwin, but certainly never claimed to be a Darwinist!) As for the rest, as Stephen Flurry is even younger than Joseph Tkach and certainly is in no better position to know what Armstrong ever studied and is a primary member of a group with its own agenda in regards to Armstrong and the WCG, I see no reason to back either's OWN statements one over the other on face value. - jere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2007.

Reply from 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Note that Stephen Flurry's age is irrelevant to the factual issue at hand, simply because he didn't assert Amrstrong studied Pyramidolgy back in the 1930's, right?

I agree with Jere on this. It's not appropriate for encyclopedia editors to delete appropriately sourced material because of a personal distaste for the source.

• Perhaps this could be resolved by providing contrasting information from a different appropriate source, if appropriately cited. For instance, a court case would need to be cited by style (that's the names, the case number, the jurisdiction, and the year) and by references to specific exhibits or transcript page numbers, or by contemporaneous or retrospective accounts from other reliable sources such as the mainstream press.
• Another way to handle it might be to preface the remark with info indicating the source has been questioned, like "Although his neutrality has been questioned, John Jones says that Fred Smith was a dogcatcher at one point in his life..." with a wikilink to the article about John Jones, where a discussion of his credibility would fit. Such a discussion of Jones' credibility doesn't belong in Smith's article, except by brief introductory reference.

Also, an article's talk page is not a place for "debate" in the sense of an antagonistic rhetorical contest. It is appropriate to cooperatively discuss credibility of sources. Cordial and dispassionate discussion is more likely to be productive of a good article than oppositional "debate." -- Lisasmall 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisasmall,

You said:

"It's not appropriate for encyclopedia editors to delete appropriately sourced material because of a personal distaste for the source."

I must admit, it's a little frustrating how you address my third point as if the first two points I made somehow don't exist. I can probably deal with that by presenting them again in a different way, exposing the issues in question further to the light of day. Anyway, in the posting in question, the first two points were what sealed the deal of my position--don't you think that?

Regardless, my personal distaste for such a source is irrelevant. I didn't say I had a "distaste" for the source in question, I simply threw in a third point to my posting to support the first two, arguing in the third point that the source--Joseph Tkach--is a well-known liar on a mass produced scale. But perhaps more importantly (if one could possibly imagine a more important flaw in a source than being a proven congenital liar), he pretty obviously appears to have written his book for self serving purposes to justify, as found in the court records of the state of California, lying to members about the doctrinal changes he was working on while he continued to collect their tithes and offerings given in good faith. When they found about what he was doing, they predictably left in droves which they would have done sooner if his mendacity hadn't covered up the changes--and so he and his fellows were left with the money, which, their financial records reveal, they did not use to distribute the literature free of charge bequeathed them by Armstrong--and did not continue the charitable activities.

Now if Tkach wrote a book on ponies, using that in an article on equestrianism would not be all that unseemly because there's not a whole lot of conflict of interest there, right? But he literally--through dishonesty--swindled tens of thousands of individuals out of their money, which they had turned over to him as a religious rite no less. Relying on him as an encyclopedia source, without heavy textual qualification, is embarrassing at best and disgraceful at worst.

Please read again the first two points I made. Note that Stephen Flurry's age is irrelevant to the factual issue at hand, simply because he didn't assert Amrstrong studied Pyramidolgy back in the 1930's, right? Here were the first to point for your review...

1)Armstrong never mentioned such a subject (pyramidology) or anything relating to it in any book or booklet. Though the Church cautiously supported the tradition that Job was involved in constructing the Pyramid at Giza, that obviously is not part of pyramidolgy.

2) The source cited was Joseph Tkach book Transformed by Truth. A reading of his book shows he was not ever in a position to know what Armstrong ever studied. He was born several decades after Armstrong's original delving into the Bible.

You mentioned qualifying the statement, but even to with reasoning, wouldn't such a minor point just be wasting the readers time on a (gulp) silly tangent. But...If you want to apply those same principles to other issues, than we have something to talk about. If you follow through on that principle of qualifying citations, you are adopting a noble stance, and I will be looking fro that cooperation from you--I shall expect it. It just has to not bog down the flow of the artilce into tangents, or add unnecessary length--Wikipedia tried to keep the length down and this one is becoming unwieldy already.

---

I think the point that is being missed is that where Transformed by Truth was used by me, it was citing letters and other non-Tkach documentation. I did not say pyramidology was part of WCG doctrines. Please copy and paste where I said that - you won't find it. I simply included it, as I said, to note the broadness of said study. ~jere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2007.

Robust editorial discourse versus "antagonistic rhetoric"

Lisasmall,

You chastised me for bringing debate and "antogonsit rhetoric" into this page. This is an oppotunity to invite readers to scroll back and have a look. It's actually great stuff, and will be an interesting and exciting read for most familiar or unfamiliar with this subject.

I have manifestly shown no hostility to you as a person, I've been quite warm--I show a robust aversion to your thought process and approach to the subject at hand--including the discussion page where you talk past my comments rather than take them on or acknowledge them in any way--but it's most certainly not antagonism toward you personally and my comments show that. I understand your concerns and where you are coming from when you approach Armstrong and the Church he led, believe me, but I separate the actions from the actor in my attitude as much as I can humanly.

Moving on, I've been lauded by a third party for raising a few sparks--nothing wrong with that. Readers will enjoy learning more about the subject, and the history of this article. They can scroll back to an exchange involving Realhistbuff and the aforementioned third party as well for that edit history.

I've received more than a few broadsides from you on this page. In any case, the "antagonistic rhetoric" on this page doesn't even rate a comparison to the language you used in some of your initial article edits. To be honest, I've really held back in saying what I really thought of it--I've been cordial and diplomatic. What I've presented is a strong, intellectually robust rebuttal and that will only seem antagonistic to the one who is getting their head handed to them in the exchange--and taking you on like that is more than worth it and appropriate, becasue it's better for Wikipedia than ending up with the rhetoric we saw in the article on 7-19 and 7-20-2007 (i.e. the way the Time quote was set up, discussed earlier).

208.253.158.36 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbbrady

New section has new title

The former title I put up was from H. W. Armstrong's perspective really, and so wasn't a fully NPOV perspective. It's now "Controversy with ministry and new direction" rather than "Oppostion from the ministry and new Direction" though he definitly reecived doctrinal opposition, I want to be avoid trouble on this if at all possible.

Hope this change suits the Church of God(Seventh Day) enthusiasts.

The new section still includes what was recently added (by jere I believe), clarifies the the controversy from a neutral perspective, and yet adds some citations which we have been admonished to do. It can not get any more NPOV now. Armstrong's autobiography imputes no deliberate, premeditated wrongdoing on the part of the leadership of the Church of God, though he felt the "spirit world" was influencing emotions and actions, and felt two lower ranking ministers had dealt with him unfairly. None of that was not put into the passage. Overall, it's not all that important or interesting, and ideally the entire subject of his transition from the Churhc of God to the radio Church of God could one day be replaced with more interesting things about his wife's roll in this transition period.

Please don't start a revert war over this issue--someone already tried to wipe out this section--and it had five or six citations! I'll will alert Josi to the issue. Everyone chill out.

69.115.162.235 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

The subject's autobiography is a "neutral perspective"?? ~jere

Sonnet

I think that the sonnet and supporting text that keep being inserted are not appropriate for this article, as they fall under the heading of original research. Is there consensus for removing it?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the John Milton sonnet should be removed, because there is no citation showing its relevance to the subject of the article, Herbert W. Armstrong. EdJohnston 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. You're both right. I took it out. It's fascinating but it's relevance to Armstrong is too indirect, especially because Milton may not have been an authority on the Waldensians history, but merely an echo of a prevailing view among educated contemporaries, which isn't the same. I won't bring it back unless I find a way to both qualify it and make it fit better--Not likely. But even if so, I would present it here first for comment.

P.S. SarekOfVulcon, don't hesitate to share your views early on--on discussion pages that is. I didn't understand the nature of/ reason for the reverts until you made this posting--there have been good faith difficulties with this article.

Jebbrady 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Moved a discussion here from User_talk:EdJohnston

I removed the following postings by User:Jebbrady from my User_talk and brought them here, because they concern this article and other editors should have the chance to see them. Please note that many noticeboards ask editors to post briefly, for example, to limit themselves to 200 words. I can't guarantee to give my full attention to very long statements. EdJohnston 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Mr. Johnson,Andre and Lisa,

I have issued a friendly challenge to Lisasmall (see below), and I want to put forth a quick reminder of the history of this article to provide some context: since October I've been trying to clean up what can only be described as the strong appearance of religious discrimination--to put it mildly--in the articles treatment of Herbert W. Armstrong beliefs and life's work. Clearly many people did not like his strong views and I'm not surprised a dislike is expressed on internet websites, but at first it was shocking to see it here, without any attempt to even temper the POV. On the discussion page, I have gone into exhaustive detail on this--especially in postings from December and November. There is much written, but not all readers were familiar with the subject. Taken as a whole it makes a devastating case to support my claim of the article featuring POV expanded into bigotry toward a religion.

The third party who commented back then was not "dismissed" by me at any point, as unequivocally stated by Lisasmall, but rather eventually swung much support to the stand I was taking. It did take some time to familiarize him with the subject in order for that to happen.

With that as the context, Lisasmall makes very strong indictments of my conduct on the discussion page-to put it politely.

The challenge I issued on her page, which it is only fair for you to know of, is this: to please back up these accusations with comments by posting on this page the cut and pasted comments of mine that would back up your accusations in any way. I will press the notion that failure to respond to this challenge should be regarded as proof that my conduct was not characterized in anything resembling an accurate, fair way. I don't expect to see anything that resembles her characterization remotely

208.253.158.36 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

For anyone's convenience, the link back to Jebbrady's posting on my talk page is here. I agree that it's best to consolidate the discussion here, on this article talk page, rather than across several user talk pages. -- Lisasmall 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved a discussion here from User_talk:Lisasmall

Jebbrady is not cooperating with the attempts by EdJohnston and me to consolidate article concerns on the article talk page. Following Ed's example, I have moved the following posting from my user talk page and placed it here, as it concerns this article and other editors should have the chance to see it. Please note that Jebbrady did not use a tilde signature, but typed the line in manually. This aggravates a problem with tracking his activity, as he's been using multiple accounts/ISPs. He has twice been reminded by an admin about logging in on User_Talk:Jebbrady, and I explained the tilde protocol to him once myself here on this page. The material below the line is the material moved from my user talk. You can see the comment to which he is responding (my request to keep article disputes on the article's talk page for the convenience of other editors and the dispute resolution process) here. -- Lisasmall 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Lisa that sounds like legalese. In effect, you're not going to be producing any evidence to back up your extremely negative description of my "conduct". Of course, you kow full well that no one would read the entire discussion just to find it. No one, that is, except Edjohnson. Thankfully, he seems to be reading the entire exchange.

23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Sockpuppet and Religious Charlatan

-Edjohnson and Lisasmall,

I tried to edit form work on my lunch break. Not exactly scandalous, Lisa :o)

Please bear with this rather lengthy response--it's a big and important subject for Wikipedia and I want to provide a little background.

First, as far as Lisasmall's following statement: "maybe you'd be able to get through (to Jebbrady) where I, as a novice to this kind of conflict, have failed", I would just say that my view, not surprisingly, is in disagreement with the implication of that. A quick read of my recent postings shows that I have been more than reasonable and fair, and I'll add that I've held back from expressing what I really think on more than one occasion. Thus, keeping the debate to the quality of the edits and standards of scholarship of Lisasmall's recent additions, I have admittedly been robust in my description of my deep problems with the edits.

I make no apology that my aim is to win the debate in the arena of editorial legitimacy.

Before I give some background and make a plea, I would like to venture a supposition: A religious leader is either a charlatan or is sincere--there is no in between. The clear, overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that Armstrong was the latter. The tone of the article cannot have it both ways. The practice of the editors who at one time took a kind of ownership of this article was to cram in unsubstantiated, uncited innuendo suggestive of Armstrong being a religious hypocrite and charlatan, without ever actually addressing or exploring the issue directly and honestly. Meanwhile, these editors--as seen in the September version of the article--managed to not make a single mention of anything remotely positive that Armstrong had ever been involved in through the Church--and there were many well known humanitarian initiatives, as well as truly surprisingly illustrious honors he received from heads of state. Heavy innuendo and hearsay without citations, and nothing positive. Not a single mention. (These positives are listed now with citations.)

Therefore Wikipedia ultimately has a decision to make: Is it fair and legitimate to characterize this religious figure as a "Charlatan", or will it instead be as a religious figure who was "sincere, but disliked by some." If arbitrators ultimately go with a charlatan angle against a reasoned look at all the evidence, then the appearance of Wikipedia being used as a platform for people who don't like certain religious beliefs will be back. That is something I had vigorously fought to get rid of.

So Wikipedia does have a decision to make, and a lot of people are and will be watching; Armstrong still has thousands of supporters and followers from all walks of life who know about the "critics" yet respect him greatly yet soberly, and some of the heads of state he was close friends with are still alive. A high profile church owns and distributes for free all the books he wrote, and they've named their liberal arts college after him.

I respect Wikipedia and use it frequently, and I'm tired of hearing people knock it. Let's make sure we do our homework and stay objective in this controversy.

Jebbrady 02:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

--

Personally, I think it foolhardy to claim that it has to be one angle or the other. Claiming that it must be from SOME direct angle violates objectivity. I would think it more objective if we cited the opposing points of view we could find reference to, not spend time leavening ourselves as "robust intellectual discoursers"... - jere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2007.

Can I have permission to remove bold type from this Talk page?

Will the other editors on this page go along with my removing the bold font from their comments and replacing it with normal font? I need to read this page carefully to see what's been going on and I find the bold face exhausting. I would need at least two favorable responses before going ahead with this plan. Thanks, EdJohnston 03:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

yes go right ahead. I'm the culprit. I had my reasons at the time but I have discontinued that practice.

Jebbrady 12:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

yes, thanks. -- Lisasmall 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the responses. I did about half the page, and I also moved signatures to the end of their respective comments, since otherwise it wasn't always clear who said what. Will continue this later. EdJohnston 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to ramble

Clearly there is a lot to digest on this Talk page, and I see some tricky issues. Before looking into those, I checked out the article itself, which appears long and rambling. If you read the separate article on Armstrongism you will get a flavor of Armstrong's thinking very quickly. By contrast this article seems slow-moving and doesn't summarize his life very effectively. The lead does not focus on what is most interesting about Armstrong, and seems to be trying to pack in as many favorable items as possible regardless of relevance. It is also hard to see much value in the section on invitations from royalty and heads of state, which reads like a laundry list, and even includes recognition by Leopold III of Belgium, an unsavory character. (That material might be better summarized in one or two sentences). I notice that Jossi has put up sourcing banners

and there is a suggestion that unsourced material may need to be removed. If this is done, it might actually be beneficial for the article. EdJohnston 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

--EdJohnson

Thanks for your efforts and objective analysis. I agree with your comments.

(I would add quickly that I'm still most concerned with the controversy that is being stirred now, revolving around an editor who's is backing additions that express the same inappropriate tone so problematic in the article in the past. The debate is heated because the editor is justifying it by 1) ignoring context and 2) championing obviously questionable sourcing. I'm having difficulty getting this editor to address specific concerns regarding those two things, as seen on this page).

Intro & Accomplishments

Though I did not construct the intro, I had thought the editor who wrote it had not included all of Armstrong's most interesting beliefs because of the "Armstrongism" link. I think the editor had put the list of activities and accomplishments as a counterweight to the breathtaking POV that held sway for so long with the article. The laundry list of performers for the Auditorium is a bit much . The list of heads of state can be shortened, but perhaps not too much:consider that what makes it interesting is the length itself--I myself wouldn't have been that surprised if he had managed to meet with a couple prominent leaders. What is so amazing is that he somehow met with so many--most very prominent in world affairs.

So help us rewrite the intro if you please would, but keep in mind when doing so that the cultural activities and the college (education) were actually part of his religious philosophy: His college was famously planned from the beginning not to be a "Bible College" but a non-acredited liberal arts school with a world class performing arts series, and education was to him "the source of the world's problems" and also the solution in the future. He believed that cultural activities were "God plain level" activities preparing man to be in God's Family.

Citations Coming

Lastly, I've carefully reviewed all the sections, including the one's without citations, and I can testify as one who knows the subject well that it's factual and that it's only a matter of finding page numbers, and putting in the citations--not additional research and fact checking. So far, there are 16 new citations as of July 29, and I'm busy this week and this coming Sunday getting the rest in.

208.253.158.36 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

EdJohnston, administrator ≈ jossi ≈ said he would give Jebbrady some time to source the material (see "unsourced materials" heading above). Jossi concluded that he would delete or move the unsourced material on or about July 31. I've been hanging back per WP:CIVIL as a courtesy to give Jebbrady time to fix the article's problems without having me in the way. It is my hope that Jebbrady produces an article that will not need revision. However, if that doesn't work out, I'll likely submit a substitute (which will survive in the diffs even if reverted) and refer the matter to the next step in the dispute resolution process. Thank you for taking the time to review the record here and help this article improve. -- Lisasmall 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady 10:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Lisasmall, you've been really driving things here and I just want to ask you about your research.

First, you should realize that you have been "in the way" as you put it, in my efforts to oblige everyone, as I've had to take the time to explain to the staff false allegations you made against me on their pages (it's only fair to point out that you've yet to produce evidence they can readily examine, as I requested).

You make reference to the articles "problems" and that you may submit your own version, and I believe in the good faith policy, so let me ask you to let us know the books you have used in your research.

Have you read his lawyer's book, called Against the Gates of Hell (Stanley Rader) or "Raising the Ruins" by Stephen Flurry? Note that the these two works are the source material for controversy, as they show where allegations came from and how they fared in the court of law. I do see you defending Tkach's self serving book as a source, a work I've begun to excoriate on this page.

Did you read the autobiography Armstrong wrote? His books are basic source material of course, especially his autobiography.

Your edits' tone and suggestiveness exist in a vacuum of information--as shown on this page. Let us now what you've been doing in your research since then. Overall, what objective material have you read on Armstrong's life?

Jebbrady 10:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, your statement that Armstrong's autobiography is primary source material seems to indicate that you haven't reviewed WP:PSTS, and, more relevantly, WP:V. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources....Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Also, please try to remember to add edit summaries: there's an option on preferences that will require you to add one before saving, if you want to give that a try.--SarekOfVulcan 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm not sure what you mean here. I'll try to look up the term "edit summaries" in the help section. If it's no bother, please advise further.Jebbrady 07:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

You don't need to check help: just look between where you're typing and the Save page button. There's a line there that says "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made". That will sometimes be filled in with the section you're editing: you should always add something besides that. For example, the edit summary on this edit will be "/* This article seems to ramble */ explain edit summary". Hope this helps!--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady requested an extension till this coming weekend. In the spirit of AGF, I would suggest we afford him one more week, until August 8 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarek,

I think we agree: the problem is the way I expressed the relevance of Armstrong’s biography. Though I must admit I did not review the policies you refer to, my defense is that I have previously relied on--was confident in--what I learned earning a degree in history, and the encyclopedia preference for scholarly secondary sources is an adjustment for me (primary sources are considered the best in history departments because they don't have to avoid "original research"); As I understand it, "original research" in Wikipdedia is not the use of primary sources, its how they are used, unless I'm mistaken about the policy there.

As far as contributions I’ve made to the article, my uses of "self published" sources does not clash with the bullet points above.

Consider that when it comes to 1) the relatively minor section on his early life before becoming famous, and 2) dates, Armstrong's autobiography is the best source we have—utilizing an autobiography to fill in gaps—especially childhood etc.—is a standard practice by biographers as a necessary concession to the realities of research. We can overcome it by qualifying such passages. Example: Open the section on his early life with,” Virtually all we know about Armstrong's early life comes from his autobiography." I believe that may have been there but was taken out.

Realize his description of his conversion experience is found in his autobiography and nowhere else. There is no reason to disbelieve his account. As for other details of his early life, I did not put them in, and have always thought those details were not that important—after all does anyone really care the date he was married etc..? Edjohnson, what do you think? An exception would be the fact that he was very successful at one point an seemingly could have continued in that vein, but instead left advertising, embraced being a minister, and excepted a life of poverty for about 28 years, according to his account.

Armstrong’s literature

Edjohnson indicated that more focus should be on Armstrong's beliefs. As far as his other works—his books on the Bible—hopefully you are not implying that they are not primary source material according to the policy (you only referred to the Autobiography). Obviously the policy to discourage “self-published material” does not apply to Armstrong’s books on the Bible—his theological beliefs. Armstrong was significant—is in Wikipedia for-- his religious beliefs and influence, and life's work as a religious leader, so you can't get better primary source material than his books on religion—by wikipedia’s standard or anyone else’s. (Primary source material in general includes: diaries, decrees, orders written in battles, letters, financial records etc... ). I understand the intent of the policy, but if there are reliable secondary sources that describe his beliefs more effectively than he himself did, they will have done the impossible. if this is a problem for administrators, there is a book that seems to sum up his beliefs, and I've ordered it.

Lastly, Lisasmall must note two policies found on the WP:V page, emphasis mine:

1) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

2) "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." She was directly insinuating, as was Time, that Armstrong was ripping off his membership financially--that is quite an exceptional claim by any standard. Noting the policy just cited, I have to argue that an obituary of a few dozen words from Time magazine, obscurely set amongst several other obits and obviously issued with little or no editorial oversite (as the posting below shows), is not a source one would call "exceptional".

23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Start-class to B-class== Has multiple thorough sections, and extensive references. I understand the person lowering it to Start-class says there are POV issues -- that may or may not be, I didn't look very thoroughly, but doesn't make the difference, you'll notice the Quality scale specifically mentions the possibility of NPOV issues under B-Class. This isn't a GA review, just an assessment, and the differences between Stub, Start, and B are usually pretty obvious. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I had lowered it based on the following statements; "Start class: The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element." "B class: Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process." I consider it weak in reliable third party sources (currently it relies almost exclusively on pro-Armstrong references), the POV, the Original research, and the lack of any meaningful content about the highly controversial nature of his teachings and personal life. It's really not of the highest quality. Pairadox 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)