Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive1 summary

The article Charles Taze Russell is currently the subject of an edit war between Pastorrussell and a consensus of other editors. Pastorrussell says that it is already neutral, on grounds of his special biographical knowledge as a member of the Bible Students and owner of the official Charles Taze Russell website Pastor-Russell.com. Others perceive the article as POV.

Specific issues arising from this Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1#NPOV Dispute include Pastorrussell's assertion that Bible Students are "in charge" of the article, repeated removal of an NPOV tag, and repeated reverts of references to Jehovah's Witnesses in the biographical introduction.

K. posted a Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Religion, but worsening disagreement led to Robert McClenon initiating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, which is ongoing and supported by other editors. Tearlach 17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

MATERIAL BELOW THIS POINT IS ARCHIVED - PLEASE DO NOT EDIT

NPOV Dispute

As has been stated so many times before, this article is not neutral. It seems to quite clearly advocate Russell and his teachings, and downplay his role in the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses, who today publish the magazine he started. This is no disrespect to PastorRussell, just the opinion of myself and several others. If you wish to make edits, please mention what you will change here; hopefully then we can avoid an edit war. --K. 02:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, PastorRussell has removed the NPOV dispute tag. Please talk about it before doing something like that. Wikipedia is about collaboration, so if you don't agree, speak up about it. Explain why you think the NPOV is unwarranted, and then everyone can discuss it. --K. 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should talk about it BEFORE adding the NPOV tag. You are the only person who disputes the article as a whole. But if you 'rally the troops' you will get other JWs to oppose some facets, but just because you are a larger group does not make you more accurate or appropriate in your actions. Bible Students will defend Pastor Russell's life, ministry, legacy, and character to the nth degree. This is an issue of defending truth against opinions, points of view which are not backed up by historical facts, and false accusations. PastorRussell 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I had spoken about it several times. As had Schrodingers Catsup and D. --K. 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The only dispute by Schrodingers Catsup was in regards the Death and Aftermath, and he and I, in a gracious and friendly way, worked it out and both designed a neutral paragraph which was factually correct, and historically accurate. There is no neutrality issue on this *article*, although there may be some statements that some would like to see a little different. More importantly, it is factually and historically WRONG to say that Pastor Russell founded "Jehovah's Witnesses" because he most certainly did NOT, and this is established by several publications. He founded the IBSA, the WTB&TS, and the PPA. The movement currently known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" was established and so named by Joseph Rutherford in Columbus, Ohio in 1931. I am happy to work with you on the statements in the article you believe are historically inaccurate, or violate neutrality. We have had several individuals proofread the article, and all statements violating neutrality were changed. Your issue, as you state in your first post above, is that Pastor Russell founded Jehovah's Witnesses. That is positively wrong, and is in fact, a violation of the very neutrality you are claiming to defend. Bible Students are in charge of this article, and are happy to discuss and view information about historical facts, or the addition of other events in Pastor Russell's life. Much has been left out else the article would be much, much longer. But, bottom line, your opinion regarding Pastor Russell founding the JWs is factually and historically incorrect, and to include such a statement in the article would violate neutrality, because it's a false statement, and merely a point of view. PastorRussell 19:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious you feel quite strongly about the content of this article. But it must be said that no one is "in charge of this article". That statement goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Everyone has a right to edit articles.

To demonstrate why I think that the article does need a NPOV tag, let's examine just one part of the first sentence. It says that Russell was "a Protestant minister in the tradition of Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther, John Wesley and William Miller." That is POV. As far as I know, it is not generally accepted by historians that Miller or Russell were "in the tradition" of Luther. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article, not because I agree or disagree, but it is an opinion that isn't backed up by a reputable source. --K. 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you more than disagree, and this is what we should attempt to focus on. Doing so will help us work together. There may be some isolated statements that could be better worded, but the whole of the article is quite sound an neutral. In the case of the statement regarding Reformation leaders, depending upon what source is used, Wesley, Miller and Russell are all seen to have been significant Protestant Reformation leaders. On the other hand, if one is only relying on 'accepted wisdom' then none of those three were significant. How about simply saying "a Protestant minister in the tradition of the Reformation" - removing the three names? PastorRussell 06:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Frankly, I think the whole sentence has to go. For most of his life, Russell didn't belong to a Protestant church, and since the Reformation was in the 16th century (see Protestant Reformation), I don't see what grounds there are to include those statements. --K. 10:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Protestant is any individual or group that either opposes the Roman Catholic Church, or actively encourages separation from them. Pastor Russell deemed the creeds, created by the Catholic Church, to be errors and 'traditions of men'. This makes him, so to speak, a Protestant's Protestant. The entire set of principles associated with Protestantism, as a movement, was that ordination was of God, and not of man. This is why there are so many denominations within Protestantism. Each recognizes the 'ordination', if you will, of their own movement, but would not (especially from 1878 through 1916) recognize the ordination from another Protestant denomination. The "Reformation" has been variously dated as starting from as early as Peter Waldo and John Wycliffe, through in the 16th century, and continued to the days of John Wesley. Had alteration and change ended there, Wesley would have been referred to as the 'last reformer'. However, Pastor Russell rose up and threw Christendom into theological chaos. His focus was withdrawal from "Babylon", a return to the Bible as the sole word of God (sola scriptura) and the only source of unmerited grace (sola fide), and elimination of nearly ALL practices adopted by Protestants which originated from Rome. This made him, so to speak, a Reformer's Reformer. Pastor Russell, therefore, was a "Protestant minister in the tradition of the Reformation. This fact, and statement, is used in at least one Master's thesis that I am aware of, and a couple doctorate dissertations. One may also find it in other texts, published and unpublished. If you somehow disagree even after reading the above historical and factual data, please propose your own wording and let's work it out together, then when we finish it, we can post it. This is how "Schrodingers Catsup" and I worked out the issues over the "Death and Aftermath" section. He took about two weeks before getting back to me, but had we discussed it every day, we could have completed it in about four to five days. PastorRussell 16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Protestant isn't "any individual or group that either opposes the Roman Catholic Church, or actively encourages separation from them", as that definition would make any religion that proselytises Protestant, including Ba'hai and Islam.

I think Wiktionary sums it up best: "A denomination of Christianity that separated from the Roman Catholic church based on theological or political differences." - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protestant

Russell didn't separate from the Roman Catholic Church-- he actually disagreed with common Protestant teachings of the time, such as hellfire. Interestingly, Answers.com says a Protestant is "a member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli." (http://www.answers.com/protestant&r=67). Russell definitately deviated from the theologies of those men. As such, I don't think it is accurate to say that he was a "Protestant minister". --K. 02:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not historically correct. A Protestant IS any Christian group separated from Catholicism, and advocating a break from the doctrines held by them. The Reformation is variously dated and has even included Peter Waldo and John Wycliffe. The Waldenses and Wycliffites were certainly not groups fitting into your definition, but fit into the standard definition, which I follow. Pastor Russell was a Protestant minister. To deny that is to deny the very basis of Protestantism. PastorRussell 07:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you point me to a reference work that uses your definition? I can't find a definition of Protestant that agrees with you. --K. 05:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for adding the NPOV tag back on. For example, the phrase "controversial election" in the "death & aftermath" section isn't correct according to some sources, but it is to Bible Students. Therefore, it can't possibly be a neutral point of view whether it's true or not. I'm making an edit to drop the word "controversial" and probably a few other things. Why that word keeps getting added back in, is beyond me. --D 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, D. Please cast your vote below.--K. 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The election was controversial because of what happened. It is not a point of view or interpretation. Joseph Rutherford broke the law and illegally disbanded the Board of Directors on a technicality he dreamt up, and which would have equally applied to himself. His actions created great controversy, and there are documents in existence that show Rutherford purposfully orchestrated events to happen exactly as he wanted them. Therefore, to use the word "controversial" is not a subjective term. The election WAS controversial, and nearly then entire Board of Directors, inidividuals at Bethel, and the Classes throughout the area were up in arms over what was going on. As word spread, there was an active effort to reclaim proper control of the Society. Because Rutherford was a clever lawyer, and had control of key resources he was able to make it appear as though he was the savior and those questioning or oppossing him were the enemy. The controversy was established in 1917, and is not a modern subjective interpretation. To report it as controversial fits with the historical facts. PastorRussell 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, according to JW's the election was NOT controversial in any way. Correct or incorrect, this shows it's not a historical fact since not all agree on whether it occurred that way or not. It's a viewpoint of the election, therefore it has to be left out. Doesn't this make sense to you? --D 15:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote for reinsertion of NPOV dispute tag

Rather than comments back and forth, I think it's easier if we simply have a vote. If any one supports or objects to the NPOV tag being reinserted, please insert your name below:

• For:
  • K.
  • --D 15:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • --Robert McClenon 11:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Against:
• Abstained:

Please either vote for or against, or abstain. Please do not vandalise the process. --K. 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy is the very thing I have been expressing to you:

"If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue."

I asked that we DISCUSS the matter and work together to come to an agreement acceptable to all. Taking a vote is not the proper process, and in reality will make no difference. I kindly proposed we discuss the matter and work together to come up with a compromise.. If you are now saying that you are unwilling to do this then I (we) will go forward with making sure the article stays as it is, and will defend the historicity, and neutral factual data contained in the article. To go so far as to say that Pastor Russell was not a Protestant nor a minister is ridiculous in the extreme and shows ignorance of history. Any changes made that are not agreeable to the facts will be reverted to their original form. If you are choosing to not work together, and if you push the matter, then we will work without you, and defend the truth, even to the point of using the courts and television, if necessary, because we have original source documents backing up the truth. The alternative is for you to leave this alone, and move on. We will not relent from doing what is right, and not permitting any jesuit, activist, misled JW (as oppossed to an honest one), or cult watcher from pushing their way in to corrupt the truth. PastorRussell 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to continue the discussion, but simply think that as many before me have voiced concerns about the neutrality of the article, we should vote on inserting the NPOV dispute tag. I think once that's the tag is restored, then more people will be involved, and work on the article will proceed more quickly.

In accord with the policy you state, I stopped editing the article when it became apparent that you would revert each change I made. The vote I propose is only related to insertion of the NPOV tag, as you have mentioned several times that no-one other than myself thinks the article in POV. A simple vote will clearly establish that, and is Wikipedia practice to vote on such matters.

As for your bizarre comments about "if you push the matter, then we will work without you, and defend the truth, even to the point of using the courts and television", I am at a loss as to how to respond.

I really think the vote is the best way to resolve the NPOV issue, and think we can also discuss the content of the article separately. --K. 09:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not at a loss to respond to the threat of legal action. It violates Wikipedia policy, which states: "Do not make threats of legal action." If the Bible Students have original source documents presenting the truth, then they have every right to develop their own copyrighted article and publish it on their own web site or in book form, but not in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 21:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What you are doing is wrong, and violates Wikipedia policies. It also violates personal ethics. To attempt to change historical facts in order to favor one side or another is wrong. The facts presented in the article are exactly that, facts. The events happened, and are not skewed to one view or another. If a person sneezes, it is a fact they sneezed. If they sneezed at 12 o'clock on a Friday afternoon after walking home from a grocery store, each of those items is a fact. It is important for this article to be neutral. The way that can happen is through discussion, but the majority of the article requires no changing because each item is documented in source material. Any JW or "cult-watcher" who attempts to change this article will be changed right back. The dangers of having a freely editable article is that anyone who wants to say "Pastor Russell was an elephant, and had three noses" can do so. Are those facts? No, they are not. What if the person says they can prove it? How far do we go to "prove" something that goes against accepted wisdom, and documented activity? It is important to keep this article truthful, and not quibble over small items, nor to debate things such as claiming Pastor Russell was not a Protestant. Subjective ideas are not truth. Documented facts are. No vote or debate can change that. Your constant references to "many others", etc... is clearly an attempt to justify your ends. There are not "several" anything. There was only one other person who disagreed with the use of the word "controversial" in the Death and Aftermath section. The word was removed, and the idea put in such a way that both of us could agree on. So, that leaves only you to disagree. You are free to do so, and I have no problem with you disagreeing. What I do have a problem with is your attempt to completely change the entire article, question established facts and replacing them with outrageously false and subjective ideas. If you want to change something, discuss it! I honestly believe we can work together on this! I'm not oppossed to cooperation, but it almost seems like you are. Leave it at that, and let's work together rather than quibbling. Make a valid suggestion for change and we can debate how to put it in a way both can agree upon, and then our discussion is fruitful. i.e. 'sentence so-and-so uses the word 'blah blah', how about using 'xyz' instead?' Then I reply and say 'that's a good idea' or 'how about thus-and-so' and we work together. That is an efficient and productive system. PastorRussell 16:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article should not be altered to favor Jehovah's Witnesses since they no longer hold to Pastor Russell's views doctrinally, prophetically, or organizationally. If the opening paragraph is to be altered it should be completely neutral, as was discussed. To make it favorable to JWs violates the entire principle we have been debating. The only part of the current opening paragraph that may not be seen as neutral is the last part regarding the extent of Pastor Russell's works. I'm referring to the part starting with "In 1908" through to "Protestantism and Western culture". I can agree to that part being cut since, although factual, could be seen as almost an 'advertisement' of Pastor Russell. PastorRussell 13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Notice to PastorRussell

Wikipedia is a collaborative medium. You do not own this article. Others have commented that this article is not NPOV, is not well written and avoid certain key facts. You have repeatedly remove NPOV and Copyedit notices. Please stop and allow others to voice their opinion that the article needs work. --K. 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now going to insert a NPOV disputed tag, because as Schrodingers catsup and D have noted, the NPOV of this article is disputed. Even if you disagree, let the community decide; don't just unilaterally revert honest edits. --K. 01:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a collaborative medium. Several worked on the article. It is very well written, factual, and historically accurate down to the smallest detail. Based on your posts and efforts so far, it is clear that you seek to add information which is historically incorrect, and violating the very neutrality you claim to be defending. Since it is collaborative, any factual errors will be cleaned up by Bible Students who ARE in charge of Pastor Russell's life and legacy since we are the only ones who have a direct linkage to him, have all of the original historical documents, and the closest tie to him. I am willing to work with you, but your stubborn attitude results in an equally stubborn response as we are defending the truth of Pastor Russell's life, ministry, and character. PastorRussell 20:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of the NPOV dispute tag is to highlight to others that the neutrality of the article is disputed, which it is for this article. Here is a list of people who have voiced concerns about the neutrality of this article in the talk page:

• User:Nardman1
• User:Schrodingers_catsup
• User:Devon
• User:Godlydesires
• User:George_m

I think it is clear that the neutrality of this article is disputed, so the tag is appropriate, and was not unilateral. --K. 01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Each of the usernames you quote represent individuals with isolated concerns, not opposition to the entire article, or belief that it is violating neutrality. Some of the concerns are valid, and some are not. PastorRussell 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you go through the history of the talk page and see what each of them wrote, you will see quite clearly that that is not the case. In addition, you do not have to right to judge which of their concerns are valid and which aren't. That is not in line with the tenets of Wikipedia. --K. 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do. Considering the Last Will & Testament was violated, and that Bible Students are the only group on the face of the earth who have a continual legacy back to Pastor Russell, with the exception of a few individuals, the majority of those who worked with and associated with him split from the Society due to Rutherford's activity, especially when, in 1927, he stated in the pages of the Watch Tower that Pastor Russell was not the 'faithful and wise servant'. My point is not regarding the interpretation, but merely to state that the statement in the article resulted in the majority leaving. As things progressed through the 1920s more and more left. The only direct line leading back to Pastor Russell are today associated with the Bible Students. We study from the "Studies in the Scriptures", we print and distribute the volumes, we print and distribute the "Reprints of the Watch Tower 1879 to 1916" (1917 - 1919 removed), we note the remarkable fulfilments of Bible prophecies expounded upon by Pastor Russell, and our congregations ("Ecclesia's", taken from the Greek) and associated elders, etc... are organized using the same principles outlined in the Bible and expounded upon in volume six. We use advertisements, radio programs, television programs, and other mediums to spread the message Pastor Russell spread in his lifetime, using the very same points of view. The Watchtower society gave up on all those things by the end of Rutherford's life in 1942. In fact, nearly all were disposed of by the year 1931 when he presented the idea of using a new name to distinguish from the Bible Students who had split off and still using the volumes. My point is the only direct line from Pastor Russell to today is found amongst the Bible Students. We have the records and documents. We have the descendents. We have the stories from those who have died within the past 30 years, etc... JWs have no link other than by name. Cult-watchers want to unfairly represent Pastor Russell and Bible Students. Other groups want to remove his memory entirely. The article may contain a few statements which could be changed, but 90% of it is neutral and sound. It appears some of the encoding and scripting needs changing in order to be 'wikified', but that can be done easily. Bible Students have decided to stand up for Pastor Russell's legacy now that it continuing to be sullied by JWs and other groups. PastorRussell 18:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV notice

User:PastorRussell/User:Pastorrussell: Please stop removing the NPOV notice. Several Wikipedians have voiced support for keeping the tag, as evidenced by the vote above. Several other issues have been raised about the article, including possible Wikipedia:copyvio of your own biography on pastor-russell.com, statements made without references, and omission of information about Russell easily found by a Google search.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please remember that you are far outnumbered in your views that the page is neutral, factual (supported by references) and well-written (see Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#An_Outside_Opinion). Comments posted in the last couple of days make it clear that your views do not represent the general consensus, and so you act unilaterally when removing the NPOV tag. Please desist from removing it. --K. 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Death and Aftermath

it seems to me that the article very much is advocating his teachings, instead of being fair and neutral. Someone should rewrite it. Schrodingers catsup 12:35, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is the details dealing with the aftermath of Russell's death. It is extremely biased towards the historical viewpoint of the Bible Students, totally disregarding the point of view of the Jehovah Witnesses. It is not by any stretch of the imagination "unbiased." It must be changed before the NPOV can come down. Schrodingers catsup 07:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no bias to the aftermath of Russell's death. The facts of history are not a bias. If this article were to contain the "point of view" of everyone who wanted then it would be 100 pages long. Our effort here is an accurate account of the ministry and history of an American MINISTER. As a result, the entry is going to be about religion, and contain religious thoughts. The aftermath of h is death was published in some newspapers, and is represented exactly as we have it here. The whitewashing of history is not history at all. We are seeking accuracy and truth, not a "point of view". PastorRussell 08:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being that Jehovah's Witnesses have a totally different view of what happened, then this isn't a neutral point of view. To me, it also comes across with a negative tone to it, which suggests biasedness. I'll write something up that's more clear and presents both views, and post it soon.--D 4 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Ok, I updated it. It's much shorter 'cause I removed much of the doctrinal changes mentioned, because I felt it was beyond the scope of the article (or at least this section). I think it's a fair write up that gives straight facts without sounding like I'm trying to convince anyone of a certain view of what happened. "Facts" I couldn't confirm without debating, I felt don't have a place here. I removed the NPOV link, as I do think this is a neutral explanation.--D 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

I agree that your write-up was more neutral and agree with much of it. However, some of the wording needed to be changed from pro-JW to an even more neutral and factual state. The current paragraph accurately and fairly represents the facts as they exist. PastorRussell 18:05, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree. I made some changes, splitting the paragraph into two and editing some wording that was a bit pro-Bible Students. It might still need a little more cleanup, but I think between the two of us, we'll get this good-n-neutral and a worthwhile read for everybody. :) --D 6 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

And I just did a couple of minor edits, making the first mention of Jehovah's Witnesses into a link, and the first mention on the page of International Bible Students (which is in the first paragraph) is now also a link. There seems to be no Wikipedia page for the Bible Students, so I had to link to their actual site. --D 6 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Dividing it into two paragraphs looks good. There is no link for "International Bible Students" because the IBSA no longer exists in its original form, and the website you linked it to is merely one of dozens of Bible Student websites, thus the link doesn't fit. Other than removing that link, the only words I put back in were "controversial election process" which accurately and factually states what happened without going into specifics. PastorRussell 11:30, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful that we can cooperate like this. I realize that Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned with the way things went in 1917, and that they must rely on the Proclaimer's book for most of the info. It does add to the mix. However, Bible Students, such as myself, who have access to all of the original documents (including those from Rutherford) are few in number. In fact, I believe I am only one of two who has a complete library of all correspondance, articals, booklets, etc. This allows me to eventually put it online for all to investigate so one may make their own decision as to what happened, and then to follow their conscience when they realized what happened. Nobody is perfect, but Jehovah loves us all if we have a pure heart. PastorRussell 15:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute your actions

With all due respect, the holders of Pastor Russell's legacy are those who have the closest and most direct link to him, not "cult-watchers", Jehovah's Witnesses, or anyone else. Bible Students in responsible positions are taking a stand to reclaim the good name of Pastor Russell all over the internet. However, to accomodate the concerns of a few, I have removed the doctrinal/scriptural conclusions and replaced it with a simple link, should the reader be interested in reading further. The history of Pastor Russell's work is inherently of a religious character, and no matter what anyone does or says this cannot be changed. History is history, and any attempt to revise or censor it does a disservice to his ministry, and the wide world-reaching affect it had. As a historian I can appreciate these facts more than most. Pastor Russell 07:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

with all due respect, the article overall shows a large bias to the Bible Student view, while giving little heed to the Jehovah Witness view. It is not a fairly written, non-objective article. There is a clear bias. Schrodingers catsup 07:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. There is not "Jehovah's Witness" view nor a "Bible Student" view. Facts are facts, and they cannot be whitewashed. One may offer an interpretation of history from a biased point of view, but if the reality demonstrates otherwise, then that interpretation is incorrect. Bible Students are the ones who have held the banner for the ministry of Pastor Russell, while Jehovah's Witnesses, The Worldwide Church of God, and other groups tied to Pastor Russell's ministry have moved on and away from him. We have the closest lineage, all of the documentation, and the strongest case legally and ethically. PastorRussell 08:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you claim, but that is only your opinion. I'm sure that a Witness would claim that they are closer to his teachings then your orgainization is, and that they are carrying his banner. We must make this article so that it is acceptable to Bible Students and Jehovah Witnessess, and that a person uneducated on the subject will get an UNBIASED view of both organizations. Schrodingers catsup 08:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Watchtower Organization, it is about a MAN, a MINISTER who lived nearly a hundred years ago! One cannot, and should not make it benign of the facts relating to his ministry when the only area of dispute is ONE PARAGRAPH a the end of the article. I have changed some of the wording just now to make it more neutral and to show support for both sides regarding the schism beginning in 1917. You will certainly find it acceptable. PastorRussell 08:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor is this article about the Bible Students. If there is dispute to the legacy and implications of this MAN, this MINISTER, both sides should be given equal voice. The article as written does not give equal voice. I do not see the changes you have made yet. Pastor Russell 08:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses only hold to SOME of his views, not all. Bible Students still read, publish, and distribute his writings, support his ministry, and have compiled the largest, and most accurate history of his life. This does not require a "point of view". There is no Bible Student bias in the article, there is only history. The only place there may be a bias, I am willing to admit, is in the segment on the death and aftermath. We can work on this. PastorRussell 08:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going to edit the article, tell me what you think of it afterwards. We'll work from there. Deal? Schrodingers catsup 08:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I have to do some heavy research first, but since I don't have the time tonight, how about we keep up the dispute on the aftermath part only, and I'll rework the section tomorrow. I need to sleep now. Schrodingers catsup

Yes, please leave the article as written by me and others, and we will work on the aftermath part tomorrow. Write me at webmaster@pastor-russell.com using a subject line with the word WIKIPEDIA or PASTOR RUSSELL in it and we can work on it together. I agree that this article should make NO REFERENCE to Bible Students, nor Jehovah's Witnesses until getting to the "Death and Aftermath" segment, and there we should work together to make it factual, unbiased, and as neutral as possible. Our focus should be on the history of the MAN, not his religious followers. Those would be most appropriate for articles named "Jehovah's Witnesses" or "Bible Students", etc... PastorRussell 09:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No

This article must, for the sake of history, show what he believed, and why he believed it. That was the whole reason for why the clergy oppossed him, and why he received such slanderous terms as "false prophet", "cult leader", etc... Pastor Russell is single handedly responsible for changing the face of modern Protestantism. Why and how so? That is the reason behind showing his doctrinal viewpoints. Without a clear view of what he believed it is impossible to understand who he was and what he did. By definition Pastor Russell is a religious leader and as such it is necessary to know what made him different from everyone else. Pastorrussell 11:36, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

How did Pastor Russell change modern Protestantism? The article does not specify, other than to state that he identified serious errors in Protestant beliefs. What denominations were influenced by his writings to modify their teachings? Robert McClenon 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

An Outside Opinion

I decided to read this article because a Request for Comments has been posted.

I found the statement on this talk page: "Bible Students are in charge of this article, and are happy to discuss and view information about historical facts, or the addition of other events in Pastor Russell's life." That is simply not true in Wikipedia. It states a proprietary involvement in an article that is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

If several Wikipedians think that the article is non-neutral, then the article is non-neutral. I don't know the details of the dispute, but I can see that there is one. The article is in need of Wikification. It does not have enough links to articles about denominations that have been influenced by Pastor Russell for me to view it in context.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a controversial denomination as seen by other Christians. A neutral point of view should include criticisms of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least state more clearly what are seen as the influences of Russell on the Jehovah's Witnesses. The article does not really give me enough information to be able to assess that. It appears that it is trying deliberately to avoid that issue, and that appears to be non-neutral.

It appears that the article needs expansion by presenting views critical of Russell's hermeneutic approach.

I am not restoring the NPOV banner, but would encourage someone else to restore it.

Robert McClenon 11:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for your sensible comments. I hope your outsider's view will help resolve the dispute over the neutrality and content of this article. Thanks again! --K. 14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I also just read the RfC, and agree with Robert McClenon. Ignoring the content, my impression is that it's not encyclopedic. The archaic style - "Charles' mother expressed to him when he was but seven-years-old" etc - suggests strongly it may come verbatim from some old source. All of it at the very least needs rehashing into appropriate style for a modern encyclopedia. The sheer non-specificity needs work: "some of his last words are quite intriguing". What did he say?! " In the year 1908, his books were officially recognized as the third most distributed texts on earth. Who by? And so on.

As to the dispute, I can't judge the religious detail. But I've seen this phenomenon many times before with religious articles. The general dynamic of a user (or small cabal of users) asserting sole control over the article (and unique insight into its subject - while failing to Cite sources) strongly suggests POV problems. Anything with Bible Students "in charge" is hardly likely to give fair representation to a secular viewpoint on Russell's life, or to issues relating to the matter of the schism between Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. (While PastorRussell has said that such issues post-date the details of Russell as a man, of course a Bible Students' POV will affect the interpretation of his life and actions - and this whole article is a blatant hagiography).

Besides, it's utterly against Wikipedia's collaborative spirit and against many specific guidelines of Wikipedia conduct. I suggest that this should be refiled under Requests for comment#General user conduct. Tearlach 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I came here from the RfC page, and I see one very big problem with the page: all criticism seems to have been moved off Wikipedia and onto an outside site. (And yes, it is possible for an article to be both factually accurate and badly biased: simply be selective on which facts you report.) --Carnildo 22:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words, the criticism is heavily 'framed' by providing only the vaguest details of the actual criticisms and focusing on CTZ's reply. A Google search finds newspaper transcripts referring to matters that ought to be in the article: for instance "Charles Taze Russell" divorce. Tearlach
  • Thank you Robert McClenon, Tearlach and Carnildo for showing interest in this article. Thanks also Carnildo for re-inserting the NPOV tag and the wikify too. It is quite clear now that the majority of comments on this page support an NPOV tag. --K. 00:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Further issue for consideration: lack of independent sources. Much of the biographical detail comes verbatim from a single source: the www.pastor-russell.com biography. Apart from POV issues, this also raises a copyright clash: the online biography has a copyright notice on it, which is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License - freedom to edit and redistribute - everyone buys into by posting it to Wikipedia. Tearlach 12:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That issue was brought up awhile ago, but got put aside when the edit stalemate began. The article clearly needs to be completely re-written, if only to avoid copyright issues. --K. 12:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've looked over the article and talk page. I'm not in any way knowledgeable about religious studies, let alone a topic as specific as this one, but a few observations spring to mind.

First of all, it's pretty easy to justify slapping an NPOV tag on an article. Unless a vast consensus agrees on a version, any editor has the right to apply the tag. It should certainly remain in this case, where it appears that a number of people have problems with the article. Secondly, citing sources is key in this sort of dispute. I wish I could do more to help, but this is decidedly not my forte. Just some words of advice, to keep the whole thing from sinking further. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 13:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

A start on fixing the article

I've redone the introduction, but it needs to make a comment on why there are two groups claiming lineage from Russell (JW and today's Bible Students). As the article is about Russell (not the controversy after his death), the comment should be there only to help the reader understand that there is some controversy. Perhaps it should link to the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article for more information about the events. Any ideas on how to put it? --K. 01:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"Charles Taze Russell ... better known as Pastor Russell". Nope. Google hits: "John Taze Russell" 17,700. "Pastor Russell" 9,200. Tearlach 01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I left that in because AFAIK, he was better known during his lifetime as Pastor Russell. But you're right; unless there is some data to back up saying "better known as", it probably should be changed to to "also known as". --K. 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

data to back up - well, the whole text needs that (Wikipedia:Cite sources). Currently the article duplicates a single source: an account of unknown authorship at a religious website. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online sources on that matter. Tearlach 15:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Pastorrussell keeps removing changes, and hides them by marking minor. I rewrote the introductory paragraph, but he has reverted it without even leaving an edit summary or reason on the talk page.

The introductory paragraph should summarise who Russell was, what he is known for, and significant facts about him. Russell started the magazine now known as The Watchtower, which is relatively well known. None of the corporations that Russell started as mentioned in the reverted introduction are well known, and all of them now operate under different names. Why should they be mentioned and not the Watchtower? --K. 02:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course. And the relationship to the Jehovah's Witnesses should be there. To get an idea of what might neutrally be viewed as salient details, here's a quote from the entry in the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" by EA Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 2000:

"Russell, Charles Taze (1852–1916), founder in 1881 of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, the forerunner of the organization now popularly known as Jehovah's Witnesses ... He began publishing the magazine Zion's Watch Tower in 1879. Under his presidency the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (as it was renamed in 1896) ..." Tearlach 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An excellent example of what the intro should be. --K. 07:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Should the article be tagged for cleanup? Or should the RfC be dealt with first? --K. 06:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think that the article should be tagged for cleanup even while the RfC is being dealt with. If the editor whose conduct has been questioned permits us to clean up the article, then the RfC can be downgraded or even withdrawn. If the editor whose conduct has been questioned interferes with cleanup, then the next step is to request mediation.

I see a few things that need to be done. A section needs to be added on what Pastor Russell stated were the errors in Protestant doctrine of the time. There is an external link, which is a source, but it should be summarized.

Those who question the neutrality of the article should make a list of questions that need sources, and wait a reasonable period of time for someone to provide the sources. If the sources are not provided after about a week, those statements should be moved to this talk page.

I would like to know the source for the statement that Russell's works were the third most widely sold works in English at the time.

Since a comment has been made that Russell's divorce was a matter of court record, a summary should be provided, noted as to source, of what was said, and any alternate point of view can be provided.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are in Russell's tradition. The Bible Students deny that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a proper link back to Russell. A summary of that dispute is required.

(By the way, that issue reminds me of the question of Anglican orders, having to do with whether there is a proper apostolic succession. However, I had never heard of Protestants arguing about apostolic succession until now. In a pluralistic society, any heretic has the right to found any heresy.) Robert McClenon 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On a (slightly) related note, I started an article on the Bible Students, which may be a better place for the dispute about who has the best link back to Russell. Or at least, some of the info on this page could be moved over there. Flammifer 14:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion arising from 2nd RfC

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell.

Was Russell a Protestant?

Is anyone questioning whether Russell was a Protestant? If so, what do they believe that he was?

I would disagree with any characterization of Protestantism simply based on its separation from the Roman Catholic Church. There are also schismatic Catholic sects, which are not Protestant. However, I have read Protestantism defined as a Christian grouping based on the teachings of the Reformers, including the doctrines of the priesthood of all believers, justification by faith alone, and the primacy of the Bible. Did Russell believe in those doctrines? It appears that he did.

Some people might more precisely choose to limit the definition of Protestantism to denominations that also believe in the Trinity. I am aware that the Jehovah's witnesses do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. I have not researched whether Russell accepted or disputed that doctrine. I would reject such a narrow interpretation of Protestantism, and would acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, but that it is not important.

The fact that Russell broke with traditional Protestant belief is not important. Tradition is not one of the pillars of the faith of Protestantism.

Any claim that Russell was not a Protestant seems silly to me.

This is not material to issues of NPOV. Robert McClenon 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• You make some good points. I'm just not sure that Russell viewed himself as a Protestant. But is that even relevant? If he didn't, but his views aligned with the general consensus of what denotes a Protestant, should the article call him a Protestant minister? --K. 05:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at the Google definition of Protestant and what ReligiousTolerance.org says, it's pretty clear that there is no set definiton for Protestant, and that it sometimes includes groups like JW and sometimes not. Perhaps the definition to be used should be Wikipedia's Protestant article. --K. 07:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Protestantism says that it is not always clearly defined, but was originally defined in terms of the five Solas. Those are "Christ alone", "Scripture alone", "faith alone", "grace alone", and "to God only the glory". The Trinity is not one of the five Solas. It appears that Russell accepted the five Solas, and he and all of his followers are Protestants. This is not material to issues of POV. Robert McClenon 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't intending to bring up the Protestant thing in relation to the current NPOV dispute. The reason I questioned it was that I had never heard of Russell being called a Protestant minister til I read Pastorrussell's biography. If it appears he was, then I don't have a problem in calling him Protestant. --K. 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tradition was never one of the pillars of the faith of Protestantism. He disagreed with tradition. I consider him an honorable heretic in the honorable Protestant tradition. In a pluralistic society, anyone has the right to be a heretic. In any case, I think that both the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, unless they wish to disclaim that affiliation.

Robert McClenon 02:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

They do not believe in Christ alone, and are therefore NOT protestant.

His death

As specified by Wikipedia:Cite sources#When there is a factual dispute, I've moved an unsourced detail to Talk for checking.

died from complications related to diverticulitis. In years past, he had also expressed problems with heart arrhythmia. In 1910 while on a mission, he nearly went into cardiac arrest

What's the source for these details? (Contemporary accounts of his last days and death can be found here and here). Tearlach 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - this was my edit. Forgot to login again after connection fell over. Tearlach 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Pastorrussell: please cite the source for your claim for diverticulitis. Tearlach 21:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Second Request for Comments

In response to Tearlach's suggestion, I have performed the unpleasant but necessary task of posting a second Request for Comments, this time concerning the failure of Pastorrussell to comply with Wikipedia official guidelines. Tearlach has then performed the tedious and unpleasant task of providing additional detail in the RfC. Thank you, Tearlach. The RfC should be viewable at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell. Other Wikipedians may visit the page to read the RfC, and may sign it either to indicate their agreement or disagreement. Please follow the instructions (which are official Wikipedia policy) on who may edit which sections of the RfC.

Robert McClenon 16:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the tedium doesn't stop there - there's all the ensuing maintenance and discussion to go... Tearlach 21:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One More Time

I don't claim to know anything about disputes between Protestant sects. In a pluralistic country, sects have the right to dispute each other, and free exchange of information is the best way to inform people.

It is not only a Jehovah's Witness, but a few other Wikipedians, who see a problem. There is a consensus, except by you, that the article as written is not NPOV.

DO NOT remove the NPOV banner again. I will not put it up. That would violate the 3RR. I will leave that up to the admins. If I see the banner put up again, and reverted again, I will have to request mediation.

If you think that the rest of the Wikipedians are being unreasonable, I would suggest that you request mediation. I would be glad to see mediation.

Robert McClenon 02:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Theology, Teachings, and Influence

I have revised the section formerly called "Personal Beliefs" to be called "Theology, Teachings, and Influence". I have added a summary of the major teachings of Pastor Russell in respect to how they disagreed with usual Protestant teachings. My source is an external link within the existing article. I have labeled the section as a stub. It needs expansion. Robert McClenon 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to Pastorrussell} for expanding the discussion of his theology. Robert McClenon 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Two More Times

Please do not continue to roll back the NPOV banner if the majority of readers think that the article is not yet NPOV. Please instead try to work with us in presenting the article neutrally. Robert McClenon 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And again: User:PastorRussell should not be removing the NPOV template until others agree it is no longer needed. - Nunh-huh 05:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

International Bible Students Association

The article says :

Russell founded [...] the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914, a branch of which came under the control of the modern Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, as far as I can tell, the IBSA that was founded in London in 1914 has always been in it's entirety under the control of the JW or their precursors. At least, the legal entity always stayed with the two other Russel founded (which are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies of New York and Pennsylvania). The three associations seem to have exactly the same path. Flammifer 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Due to this, it's probably a bit misleading to say in the intro that "a branch of which" became JW. Whether JW took control or not, those corporations are all run by JW today. Any info on what happened to the US IBSA? --K. 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it never had the kind of legal status that the UK IBSA had, mostly because such a role was fulfilled by the already existing Watchtower societies. So, while some groups did use that name in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere) before 1914, I don't know how official / legal / formal that was. It seems it was just a label to allow easier identification. Flammifer 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

POV and accuracy problems

1. What is the relationship between Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses? The lead implies that the JWs formed separately, invaded his organization, and took it over. Other sources indicate that his followers fragmented after his death, and the JWs were the largest group.
2. The article describes his divorce as "This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics." What exactly happened, and why did it become a popular subject for his critics? (According to the contemporary Russell obit, ZWT, Dec 1, 1916, "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". It then turned very nasty; in court, Mrs Russell alleged his sexual misconduct with Rose Ball, a stenographer in their house: see Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 29, 1911 - this newspaper had a definite downer on Russell). The account according to Russell - editorial disputes, church politics and all - can be read here - Tearlach 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
3. "Great controversy surrounded the publishing of [The Finished Mystery]". What was this controversy? (Authorship dispute - JWs say he wrote it, Bible Students say he didn't Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
4. "However, controversy erupted when interpreting parts of his Will that dealt with [the Watch Tower magazine]". What was this controversy?
5. "Those who stood by [Joseph Rutherford] believed that a new and better understanding of the Scriptures, as well as important prophetic events, was now due." What did the others believe? The sentence implies they believe the opposite, which seems unlikely to me.
6. "After several years of confusion, those who supported and respected Russell's spiritual views" - this implies that the JWs didn't respect Russell's views. I find this hard to believe.
7. "Yet, many Protestant groups have, in the years following Russell's death, formed around, or adopted one, some, or nearly all of his views in one way or another." - Which groups?
8. "Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell." - Was this a result of Russell's work? If so, where's the proof?
9. Source citation required for the whole of the biography. If not, the required procedure is to remove it to the Talk page for analysis.Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

--Carnildo 07:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your post is proof that this article will continue to be torn apart by those who have no care for the facts. EVERY point you just raised appeared in earlier versions of the article, but were cut out because THEY were considered to violate neutrality. It seems nobody is pleased. PastorRussell 07:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if they got taken out before; they can go back in. The wording might need work to make it NPOV, but they are important issues. If these issues were answered before, point us to which previous revisions contained them so they can be incorporated into the article. --K. 07:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, a more proper procedure for taking out the NPOV tag would be : You write a little blurb on this page saying "I think the NPOV problems have been resolved by now, are there still any issues left ?", then wait for answers. If after a couple of days, no issues are raised, you can remove the tag. If issues are raised, you (or anybody else) can try to solve them, then repeat the process.

There's no problem with leaving the NPOV tag there in the meanwhile, as long as there's the hope that everyone can work together on the article and solve those issues. That's pretty much standard wikipedia procedure, and there's a wide consensus about it. By violating established wikipedia policy, you'll only attract animosity from other wikipedians, no matter what they oringally think of the Bible Students or Pastor Russell, and I don't see how that can be of any help at all. You seem to be willing to help create a good article, which is good, but you haven't shown many signs of accepting wikipedia policy, which is probably even more important. Flammifer 08:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What is happening is that individuals with little or no knowledge of the actual facts are attempting to make the article more favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses. I kneeled to some of those requests, but cannot support, and will not agree to, the article being torn apart piecemeal. As far as violation of wikipedia policy is concerned, this whole mess started when a certain individual refused to discuss with me what we could do to work together on certain items. The policy is that BEFORE an NPOV tag is put up that there be a cooling down period where individuals attempt a concensus. This never happened. From that point on this individual went on a crusade to make sure things are done his way. Because that is what has happened, it has made me more resolute to make sure this article maintains its integrity rather than having it ripped apart. There is a right way, and a wrong way, to handle disputes. This individual went the wrong way, and a can of worms has been opened up, and everyone and his brother has come to this article with their two-cents BECAUSE OF HIM. He not only violated the cooling down policy by riling everyone up, but also violated an ethical standard and got involved in something he had no right getting involved in. PastorRussell 16:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

I just looked at the Wikipedia neutrality policy. I do not see a requirement for a cooling off period before posting an NPOV banner. Please provide me with a link or a quote. In any case, there is now consensus that there is a neutrality problem and that the article as written should have an NPOV banner. There has been one very clear violator of Wikipedia policy, and that has been Pastorrussell for violating the Three-revert rule with respect to the NPOV banner.

I will be restoring the NPOV banner shortly.

If you think that Tearlach and Robert McClenon are in violation of Wikipedia policy, then I suggest that you post a formal Request for Mediation.

If the Three-revert rule, which is official policy, is violated yet again, I will assume that Pastorrussell is not interested in mediation, and will have to submit a Request for Arbitration and request a temporary injunction against removal of the banner. Robert McClenon 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that I'm not in favor of working things out? I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try. Most everyone else is pushing the matter in unfair directions. There are no problems with POV. Everything the article is as dry as can be. At worst, there are additional details that can be added. We need to work together to make the best article possible, but the only things I'm seeing are that JWs are not represented enough, or that the article is biased toward Bible Students. Both positions are incorrect because JWs are not in control of Pastor Russell's legacy, Bible Students are. Over 3/4ths of Bible Students broke away from the Society by 1931. At that point, Rutherford chose the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" to separate himself from those Bible Students. Also, at that point, Rutherford became the leader of the JWs and any doctrinal and organizational connection to Pastor Russell was severed. As far as a bias to Bible Students is concerned, I have stripped the article of just about anything that could be construed as being a bias, therefore the continuing problems are beyond me. It seems that there are individuals who want to make the article pro-JW, which would not only violate the very neutrality many are claiming, but also violate the facts of history. It appears at this point that nobody will be happy until the entire article is scrapped and re-written. I will not permit that because the article as it stands now is perfectly sound in principle, and may at most require adding some details about the criticisms Pastor Russell faced, and adding some thoughts on doctrinal positions, which in fact had been there last week, but stripped because someone said it violated neutrality. As Lincoln said "you cannot please all of the people all of the time". That seems true here. I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group. PastorRussell 19:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly? "Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to be represented in this article"? That's about as biased as you can get! --Carnildo 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not. That would be historically inaccurate. Forgive me if I misspoke. What I meant to convey is that JWs are not represented BY Pastor Russell. In other words, once 75% of Bible Students left, Rutherford took the Society in a different direction from the pattern and style used by Pastor Russell, and left in his Last Will & Testament. Therefore, to say that Pastor Russell is only and primarilly represented by JWs would be historically inaccurate, and extremely biased. The Bible Students are the sole group representing the doctrinal, and organizational, practices of Pastor Russell. JWs have control of the administrative arm founded and used by Pastor Russell, but their doctrine, organization, and practice are the exact opposite initiated by Pastor Russell. PastorRussell 20:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The continuing NPOV problem is that the article draws entirely on sympathetic accounts written through the filter of a particular religious viewpoint. It's written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance of viewing his every action as personally and religiously justified.

Where does the biography come from? Pastorrussell: you've repeatedly been asked to cite the source(s). If you can't or won't, it's effectively unsubstantiated, and should be rewritten based on what sources others can find and substantiate. I suggest a good start the biography here (which comes from the Zion's Watchtower obituary issue, Dec 1 1916). It's still selective, but has a deal of solid information such as details of his publications and travels. Tearlach 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to. The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues. Those items can be added, if they are fairly stated. In fact, I was going to put in information on the issue with The Brooklyn Daily Eagle last night, but there are so many who wish to follow a pro-JW stance that I've just about given up on even trying anymore. An honest person cannot win when so many have organized to push honest and historical data out the window in favor of biased pro-JW and pro-"cult watcher" individuals. Truth always falls by the wayside when history is rewritten and revised. That is what is clearly going on here. PastorRussell 20:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to.

In which case, Wikipedia requires that you say exactly where, so that other readers can verify it. A trivial example: the diverticulis. Where exactly does that detail come from? You keep putting it back in, with no substantiation.

The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues.

If that's so, fair enough - but with any controversial figure, it's bound to look like whitewashing if such detail is omitted. To take the example of his marital problems,

"This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics"

comes across as a very airbrushed account. Once you get into the detail, it starts looking far more like a clash of egos. The Zion's Watch Tower obit is rather more informative with its "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". And when you get into his own Zion's Watch Tower account "Truth is stranger than fiction", you find a mess of committee politicking, editorial disputes worthy of Wikipedia, Russell's belief that his wife was getting too uppity because of contact with "woman's rights" arguments, and so on.

Wikipedia Process

Pastorrussell writes: "There are no problems with POV." Your unilateral statement that there are no POV problems is arbitrary. The majority of Wikipedians who have read the article think that it has POV problems. You state that revising the article to make it more favorable to the Jehovah's Witnesses would rewrite the truth. The best way to allow the truth to be known is to state it verifiably. Please cite your sources.

Pastorrussell writes: "I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try." I have not read all of the diffs, but it does not appear that anyone has been trying to alter the content of the article, but only to state that certain statements should be presented as POV with sources. I started to try to improve the article by adding a section on theological views. That is NPOV because what the theological views of any religion are can be determined by reading its doctrines. In a pluralistic society, every citizen has a right to their own religious views, all of which are POV, and all of which should be respected.

I asked for details, as did some other Wikipedians. I asked for a source on how widely sold his works were. I have not seen it. Some Wikipedians asked for a link to an account of his divorce, which was a matter of public record. If other Wikipedians state he and his wife divorced, I consider a reference to his 'separation' to be less than accurate. That is why I put an NPOV tag on that section.

Pastorrussell writes: "I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group." I agree with the first ssentence, which is why the differing points of view are presented. The second sentence is a point of view, since it is contested by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The readers of Wikipedia can be best served by having sourced facts presented about the details of the schism, which have been requested.

Wikipedia has processes, policies, and guidelines. So far, you are having difficulty in learning to comply with them. If you think that other Wikipedians are being unreasonable, then we can resort to one of Wikipedia's processes, which is mediation. If you do not want mediation, please provide us with facts and sources. I provided the facts that I could from an external link. If you have the other facts and sources, please provide them. Robert McClenon 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Links

I found a good resource site for contemporary CT Russell texts - www.ctrussell.us/ - and snipped several links for Bible Students sites that don't provide much about Russell himself and are anyway duplicated at Bible Students. Tearlach 11:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pastorrussell: thanks for the references! I've sourced them (the print ones also need bibliographic detail) and moved them to Links as is standard. I'm not sure on the quality (viewed purely as a source) of When Pastor Russell Died: it's just an unattributed personal view. Tearlach 22:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying intro

Currently this is very verbose by Wikipedia standards. I recommend shifting most of the organisation detail (including explanations of extinct original titles) to the main account.

I think the "following the example of Reformation leaders" is POV and based on The Finished Mystery's identification of Russell as the seventh Laodicean Messenger (after St. Paul, St. John, Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther) - compare Reformation.

"One of the most widely recognized and traveled ministers of the early 20th century" - Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), also known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist. In 1881 he founded one of the first Bible Societies in the United States, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, whose schism led to the modern Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. He also founded the religious journal now called The Watchtower.

Something like the above? Tearlach 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Heck: I've done it. Here's the old intro, kept for the title changes to be edited into the main account. Tearlach 00:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), also known as Pastor Russell, was a Protestant minister following the example of Reformation leaders, and was one of the most widely recognized and traveled ministers of the early 20th century. Russell founded one of the first Bible Societies in the United States, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881, as well as the People's Pulpit Association of New York in 1909, and the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914. These organizations evolved into the modern Jehovah's Witnesses following a 1917 schism. Russell founded the religious journal Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence in 1879. This journal continues to be published under the current name The Watchtower.

I can see the point about the "peacock term", but the other items are not POV. A minister who follows in the Reformation tradition is anyone that advocates separation from the Catholic Church. Considering the wide and overwhelming impact Pastor Russell had, which was much larger than even Martin Luther, it is entirely appropriate, in terms of history, to maintain that reference. I'm happy to work with you on creating an opening intro that is acceptable to both of us. PastorRussell 00:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering the wide and overwhelming impact Pastor Russell had, which was much larger than even Martin Luther. I don't believe anyone who isn't a follower supports that conclusion. Tearlach 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That was really kind of mean. It has nothing to do with being a "follower". It's a documented fact of history. Research it. I'm not a follower of anything except the Lord Jesus Christ. But I'm also an historian, and have carefully researched and documented everything in Pastor Russell's life. He changed the face of Protestantism. People today use phrases he invented, follow viewpoints he established, and believe ideas that he made popular. This isn't a POV, but a fact of history. Look into it. PastorRussell 02:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That was really kind of mean. It wasn't meant be: by 'follower', I meant follower of the body of beliefs he initiated. I'm sure you sincerely believe in his having that level of importance. But try to appreciate that most others don't see it that way. To them, such a statement is at the level of claiming ... say ... Edgar Allan Poe had as much effect on the English language as William Shakespeare. Check out Martin Luther#His legacy and Thirty Years' War: that is wide and overwhelming cultural impact. Tearlach 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that any intro that doesn't mention the Jehovah's Witnesses is biased. As far as I'm aware, forming the organization that became the JWs was one of the most significant things he did. --Carnildo 02:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Pastor Russell only founded the corporation, not the "Jehovah's Witnesses". The JWs were formed by Joseph Rutherford in 1931. By that date nearly 75% of Bible Students had left. It would be historically inaccurate, and factually wrong to state that Pastor Russell founded the JWs. You need to do your homework, and stop putting up an NPOV on something without warrant. PastorRussell 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody here is saying he founded the JW, but that he founded "the organization that became the JWs". Flammifer 03:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I put back tearlach's version. The thing I like the less about the original intro was that it had to many links to inexistant articles which, well, doesn't seem great for an intro. Also, tearlach's intro is more standard in form. Pastorrussel, if you don't like that intro you can also add to it instead of rejecting it as a whole. Flammifer 03:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It again seems apparent that the article is being destroyed piecemeal. Most agree on something, then someone with no knowledge of the issue comes along and destroys it all. The constant effort to put JWs in the picture is WRONG. This is not a matter of opinion, but a documented fact of history. Nearly everyone who supported Pastor Russell had left by 1931 when Rutherford chose the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" for the distinct purpose of making a clear distinction between his movement and the Bible Students. As of that date the Watch Tower Society went off in a completely different direction than that instituted by Pastor Russell. JWs do not hold to Pastor Russell's doctrinal views, nor his organizational ideas. JWs have almost no connection to him, except in name only. It is unfair and biased for anyone to continue forcing the issue that Pastor Russell must be identified with JWs. It is a lie, and if the lie is perpetuated, then the article not only loses its integrity, but also it's soul. PastorRussell 03:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Which part of "Pastor Russell founded the organization that became the JWs" do you disagree with ? What is wrong with putting something like that in the intro ? Are differences in doctrinal views and organizational ideas enough for not saying that he founded the Watchtower and the legal entities that now form the backbone of the JW ? Flammifer 03:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

For comparison, the historical intro at the official Jehovah's Witnesses site. They hold that the organisations Russell founded were precursors. I've already cited three mainstream encyclopedias that say much the same. The precise amount of continuity is arguable-about, but it's a historical distortion not to mention it. Tearlach 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The better term would be something akin to "Pastor Russell founded the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, which came under the control of Jehovah's Witnesses following the 1917 schism". The organization didn't just "become" the JWs. They gained control of the organization, and moved it in a different direction following Rutherford's complete split with Bible Students and Pastor Russell's viewpoints. PastorRussell 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the "gained control" phrasing. It implies the JW were an external organization, which they were not. Also, the JWs as such did not exist at the time of the 1917 Shism, did they ? Describing it as a split into the JWs and the Bible Students makes more sense. Flammifer 03:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Friday" the intro has already been accepted by most, so you are going against consensus [1]

Isn't that a downright lie ? Flammifer 03:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. Several of us have been working together on the article all day long, and we agreed upon the intro as is. The only areas of dispute were tagged and I agreed to work on improving those areas. PastorRussell 03:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that since Tearlach proposed his changes to the intro, everybody but you agreed to them. Thee has also been severe disagreement about your removal of references to the JW Flammifer 03:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, please, let's not have an edit war again. Nobody here is trying to make the article say "Pastor Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses". Your energy would be better spent looking up sources and references, and linking to them, so we don't have to take your word for everything. There are still quite a few unanswered questions. "He changed the face of Protestantism. People today use phrases he invented, follow viewpoints he established, and believe ideas that he made popular." : I don't have any reason to disbelieve that, but it could take some sources and explanation. what phrases, what ideas ? Do you have references ?

I believe focusing on that aspect will be much more constructive than only focusing on his link with the JWs. Flammifer 03:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is one additional item that I can add to the References section dealing with your specific query on his influence. As for other issues, they are all dealt with in the references cited. ALL OF US should work together on those sentences that are questioned. Nobody should just put up an NPOV, change an entire entry, and then claim my changing it back is wrong. We should discuss it here, come to a consensus, THEN post a change we can all agree upon. I do not agree to the change in the intro that appeared earlier. So, let's discuss it, see what we can come up with, and go from there. PastorRussell 03:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting document - his Photo Drama of Creation movie looks worth checking out as a topic - but as the text's stated purpose is promotional, it needs a deal of cross-checking against other sources (as you ought to agree as a historian). For example, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle took the view that accounts of CTZ's world missions were somewhat hyped (see [2]).

Pastorrussell, on Wikipedia, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. If so, if one person out of 1000 disagreed, there would be a stalemate. The point is a general consensus. You are going against the general consensus by reverting the NPOV and cleanup tags, as well as constructive edits, such as the new introductory paragraph by Tearlach.

If you disagree with the consensus, provide more information to change people's minds. The battle over diverticulitus, the statements about he influenced Protestantism; these need to be backed up. Please provide sources, then the consensus will support you. --K. 03:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have provided references and information out the nose, but individuals on a bandwagon are trying to destroy the integrity of the article. We need to discuss and agree. I will stand up for the truth and not back down. If the article is destroyed I will rebuild it. The truth is the truth. PastorRussell 03:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we're having some progress :) I prefer "American protestant evangelical" to "protestant evangelical from Pittsbught Pennsylvania USA" because other bio articles are made the same way. I also made "Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" into a redirect so that we don't have some ugly red broken links in the intro. Flammifer 05:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Diverticulitis

Pastorrussell: please stop editing in "diverticulitis" without proof. It's a trivial detail, but exemplifies the whole issue of citing sources. The St. Paul Enterprise source has a contemporary account: "The fact is that he did not die of heart trouble, but of an inflammation of the bladder, and while writing you on Brother Bohnet’s desk I could not fail to see on the burial permit that the cause of death was given as 'Cystitis'". If you know better, provide a reference. If you can't, this is the most specific source we have, and the article should reflect it. Tearlach 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing it without proof. The argument works both ways. The matter of diverticulitis and heart arrhythmia are mentioned in a Convention Report which I am unable to reference at the moment because I just had surgery and am unable to get around easily. Please ease up and stop nitpicking. I know more about the topic than most anyone. PastorRussell 02:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The argument works both ways. No, it doesn't. Read what Robert said about Wikipedia processes. It works one way only: things go in Wikipedia on the basis of proof - not absence of disproof. See Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have nothing against the possibility of his having some other condition(s) (and frankly, death from cystitis alone sounds fairly unlikely). But if you can't currently provide a specific source, for Wikipedia purposes it's unsubstantiated. Tearlach 02:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Cause of Death Information

Pastorrussell wrote: "The matter of diverticulitis and heart arrhythmia are mentioned in a Convention Report which I am unable to reference at the moment because I just had surgery and am unable to get around easily. Please ease up and stop nitpicking. I know more about the topic than most anyone."

The details of the causes of his death do not seem important to a discussion of Russell's place in the history of religion. I would suggest that we leave that section alone until Pastorrussell is stronger.

I would also suggestion that Pastorrussell should stop trying to assert knowledge that he cannot provide or provide, until he is stronger and can insert sourced material. I would also ask Pastorrussell to consider whether he currently feels strong enough and well enough to comply with the rules of Wikiquette and to make contributions to this article. Robert McClenon 14:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Early life

Some good progress has been made on the introduction, despite the revert war. I think now we should focus on the Early life section.

My feeling is that it has a lot of extraneous detail. Is Russell's mother's maiden name important? Is it relevant to list the name and dates of birth and death of each of his siblings? --K. 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, for a famous individual with non-famous relatives, the consensus on VfD is to merge articles on those relatives to the article on the famous person. Based on that, I'd say that including basic biographical information on his immediate family is a good idea. --Carnildo 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Siblings

Can anyone fill in the gaps for Russell's siblings?

1. Frank (1850 - 4 September 1855), died from whooping cough (at what age? 4? 5?)
2. Charles Taze II (16 February 1852 - 31 October 1916) (I'm assuming he was second)
3. Margaret/"Mae" (? - late 1940s), married name Margaret Land (we need a source for her death and I'm assuming she was third)
4. Lucinda (1857 - 1858)
5. Joseph Jr. (1859 - 1860)

--K. 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Armageddon

I added a bit on his views on the end of times. Sources : [3], [4] and [5]

Those contain citations from the watchtower from that time, if those are contested they can be looked up. Flammifer 08:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea: the article as it stands doesn't convey how colossally they screwed the pooch with failed end of times predictions.

BTW, I'm not keen on that Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh page. The account of his death is very sensationalized: the contemporary accounts show he'd been getting progressively iller for at least a day, and the "wrap me in a Roman toga" makes him sound a nutter. In context, it makes sense: his blankets kept slipping off, and he asked a colleague to pin them at his shoulders like a Roman toga to stop this. Tearlach 12:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

General wikifying

Any thoughts on this? Currently, the verbosity and Edwardian flavour don't look very encyclopedic to me. The pages for other evangelists make interesting comparison: John Wesley in particular suggests possible sub-headings - such as Literary works - that could be useful in organising it into smaller paragraphs. Tearlach 12:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Theology, Teachings, and Influence

I have revised the section formerly called "Personal Beliefs" to be called "Theology, Teachings, and Influence". I have added a summary of the major teachings of Pastor Russell in respect to how they disagreed with usual Protestant teachings. My source is an external link within the existing article. I have labeled the section as a stub. It needs expansion. Robert McClenon 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to Pastorrussell} for expanding the discussion of his theology. Robert McClenon 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

International Bible Students Association

The article says :

Russell founded [...] the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914, a branch of which came under the control of the modern Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, as far as I can tell, the IBSA that was founded in London in 1914 has always been in it's entirety under the control of the JW or their precursors. At least, the legal entity always stayed with the two other Russel founded (which are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies of New York and Pennsylvania). The three associations seem to have exactly the same path. Flammifer 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Due to this, it's probably a bit misleading to say in the intro that "a branch of which" became JW. Whether JW took control or not, those corporations are all run by JW today. Any info on what happened to the US IBSA? --K. 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it never had the kind of legal status that the UK IBSA had, mostly because such a role was fulfilled by the already existing Watchtower societies. So, while some groups did use that name in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere) before 1914, I don't know how official / legal / formal that was. It seems it was just a label to allow easier identification. Flammifer 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

POV and accuracy problems

1. What is the relationship between Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses? The lead implies that the JWs formed separately, invaded his organization, and took it over. Other sources indicate that his followers fragmented after his death, and the JWs were the largest group.
2. The article describes his divorce as "This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics." What exactly happened, and why did it become a popular subject for his critics? (According to the contemporary Russell obit, ZWT, Dec 1, 1916, "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". It then turned very nasty; in court, Mrs Russell alleged his sexual misconduct with Rose Ball, a stenographer in their house: see Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 29, 1911 - this newspaper had a definite downer on Russell). The account according to Russell - editorial disputes, church politics and all - can be read here - Tearlach 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
3. "Great controversy surrounded the publishing of [The Finished Mystery]". What was this controversy? (Authorship dispute - JWs say he wrote it, Bible Students say he didn't Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
4. "However, controversy erupted when interpreting parts of his Will that dealt with [the Watch Tower magazine]". What was this controversy?
5. "Those who stood by [Joseph Rutherford] believed that a new and better understanding of the Scriptures, as well as important prophetic events, was now due." What did the others believe? The sentence implies they believe the opposite, which seems unlikely to me.
6. "After several years of confusion, those who supported and respected Russell's spiritual views" - this implies that the JWs didn't respect Russell's views. I find this hard to believe.
7. "Yet, many Protestant groups have, in the years following Russell's death, formed around, or adopted one, some, or nearly all of his views in one way or another." - Which groups?
8. "Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell." - Was this a result of Russell's work? If so, where's the proof?
9. Source citation required for the whole of the biography. If not, the required procedure is to remove it to the Talk page for analysis.Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

--Carnildo 07:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your post is proof that this article will continue to be torn apart by those who have no care for the facts. EVERY point you just raised appeared in earlier versions of the article, but were cut out because THEY were considered to violate neutrality. It seems nobody is pleased. PastorRussell 07:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if they got taken out before; they can go back in. The wording might need work to make it NPOV, but they are important issues. If these issues were answered before, point us to which previous revisions contained them so they can be incorporated into the article. --K. 07:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, a more proper procedure for taking out the NPOV tag would be : You write a little blurb on this page saying "I think the NPOV problems have been resolved by now, are there still any issues left ?", then wait for answers. If after a couple of days, no issues are raised, you can remove the tag. If issues are raised, you (or anybody else) can try to solve them, then repeat the process.

There's no problem with leaving the NPOV tag there in the meanwhile, as long as there's the hope that everyone can work together on the article and solve those issues. That's pretty much standard wikipedia procedure, and there's a wide consensus about it. By violating established wikipedia policy, you'll only attract animosity from other wikipedians, no matter what they oringally think of the Bible Students or Pastor Russell, and I don't see how that can be of any help at all. You seem to be willing to help create a good article, which is good, but you haven't shown many signs of accepting wikipedia policy, which is probably even more important. Flammifer 08:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What is happening is that individuals with little or no knowledge of the actual facts are attempting to make the article more favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses. I kneeled to some of those requests, but cannot support, and will not agree to, the article being torn apart piecemeal. As far as violation of wikipedia policy is concerned, this whole mess started when a certain individual refused to discuss with me what we could do to work together on certain items. The policy is that BEFORE an NPOV tag is put up that there be a cooling down period where individuals attempt a concensus. This never happened. From that point on this individual went on a crusade to make sure things are done his way. Because that is what has happened, it has made me more resolute to make sure this article maintains its integrity rather than having it ripped apart. There is a right way, and a wrong way, to handle disputes. This individual went the wrong way, and a can of worms has been opened up, and everyone and his brother has come to this article with their two-cents BECAUSE OF HIM. He not only violated the cooling down policy by riling everyone up, but also violated an ethical standard and got involved in something he had no right getting involved in. PastorRussell 16:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

I just looked at the Wikipedia neutrality policy. I do not see a requirement for a cooling off period before posting an NPOV banner. Please provide me with a link or a quote. In any case, there is now consensus that there is a neutrality problem and that the article as written should have an NPOV banner. There has been one very clear violator of Wikipedia policy, and that has been Pastorrussell for violating the Three-revert rule with respect to the NPOV banner.

I will be restoring the NPOV banner shortly.

If you think that Tearlach and Robert McClenon are in violation of Wikipedia policy, then I suggest that you post a formal Request for Mediation.

If the Three-revert rule, which is official policy, is violated yet again, I will assume that Pastorrussell is not interested in mediation, and will have to submit a Request for Arbitration and request a temporary injunction against removal of the banner. Robert McClenon 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that I'm not in favor of working things out? I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try. Most everyone else is pushing the matter in unfair directions. There are no problems with POV. Everything the article is as dry as can be. At worst, there are additional details that can be added. We need to work together to make the best article possible, but the only things I'm seeing are that JWs are not represented enough, or that the article is biased toward Bible Students. Both positions are incorrect because JWs are not in control of Pastor Russell's legacy, Bible Students are. Over 3/4ths of Bible Students broke away from the Society by 1931. At that point, Rutherford chose the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" to separate himself from those Bible Students. Also, at that point, Rutherford became the leader of the JWs and any doctrinal and organizational connection to Pastor Russell was severed. As far as a bias to Bible Students is concerned, I have stripped the article of just about anything that could be construed as being a bias, therefore the continuing problems are beyond me. It seems that there are individuals who want to make the article pro-JW, which would not only violate the very neutrality many are claiming, but also violate the facts of history. It appears at this point that nobody will be happy until the entire article is scrapped and re-written. I will not permit that because the article as it stands now is perfectly sound in principle, and may at most require adding some details about the criticisms Pastor Russell faced, and adding some thoughts on doctrinal positions, which in fact had been there last week, but stripped because someone said it violated neutrality. As Lincoln said "you cannot please all of the people all of the time". That seems true here. I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group. PastorRussell 19:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly? "Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to be represented in this article"? That's about as biased as you can get! --Carnildo 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not. That would be historically inaccurate. Forgive me if I misspoke. What I meant to convey is that JWs are not represented BY Pastor Russell. In other words, once 75% of Bible Students left, Rutherford took the Society in a different direction from the pattern and style used by Pastor Russell, and left in his Last Will & Testament. Therefore, to say that Pastor Russell is only and primarilly represented by JWs would be historically inaccurate, and extremely biased. The Bible Students are the sole group representing the doctrinal, and organizational, practices of Pastor Russell. JWs have control of the administrative arm founded and used by Pastor Russell, but their doctrine, organization, and practice are the exact opposite initiated by Pastor Russell. PastorRussell 20:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The continuing NPOV problem is that the article draws entirely on sympathetic accounts written through the filter of a particular religious viewpoint. It's written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance of viewing his every action as personally and religiously justified.

Where does the biography come from? Pastorrussell: you've repeatedly been asked to cite the source(s). If you can't or won't, it's effectively unsubstantiated, and should be rewritten based on what sources others can find and substantiate. I suggest a good start the biography here (which comes from the Zion's Watchtower obituary issue, Dec 1 1916). It's still selective, but has a deal of solid information such as details of his publications and travels. Tearlach 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to. The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues. Those items can be added, if they are fairly stated. In fact, I was going to put in information on the issue with The Brooklyn Daily Eagle last night, but there are so many who wish to follow a pro-JW stance that I've just about given up on even trying anymore. An honest person cannot win when so many have organized to push honest and historical data out the window in favor of biased pro-JW and pro-"cult watcher" individuals. Truth always falls by the wayside when history is rewritten and revised. That is what is clearly going on here. PastorRussell 20:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to.

In which case, Wikipedia requires that you say exactly where, so that other readers can verify it. A trivial example: the diverticulis. Where exactly does that detail come from? You keep putting it back in, with no substantiation.

The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues.

If that's so, fair enough - but with any controversial figure, it's bound to look like whitewashing if such detail is omitted. To take the example of his marital problems,

"This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics"

comes across as a very airbrushed account. Once you get into the detail, it starts looking far more like a clash of egos. The Zion's Watch Tower obit is rather more informative with its "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". And when you get into his own Zion's Watch Tower account "Truth is stranger than fiction", you find a mess of committee politicking, editorial disputes worthy of Wikipedia, Russell's belief that his wife was getting too uppity because of contact with "woman's rights" arguments, and so on.

Wikipedia Process

Pastorrussell writes: "There are no problems with POV." Your unilateral statement that there are no POV problems is arbitrary. The majority of Wikipedians who have read the article think that it has POV problems. You state that revising the article to make it more favorable to the Jehovah's Witnesses would rewrite the truth. The best way to allow the truth to be known is to state it verifiably. Please cite your sources.

Pastorrussell writes: "I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try." I have not read all of the diffs, but it does not appear that anyone has been trying to alter the content of the article, but only to state that certain statements should be presented as POV with sources. I started to try to improve the article by adding a section on theological views. That is NPOV because what the theological views of any religion are can be determined by reading its doctrines. In a pluralistic society, every citizen has a right to their own religious views, all of which are POV, and all of which should be respected.

I asked for details, as did some other Wikipedians. I asked for a source on how widely sold his works were. I have not seen it. Some Wikipedians asked for a link to an account of his divorce, which was a matter of public record. If other Wikipedians state he and his wife divorced, I consider a reference to his 'separation' to be less than accurate. That is why I put an NPOV tag on that section.

Pastorrussell writes: "I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group." I agree with the first ssentence, which is why the differing points of view are presented. The second sentence is a point of view, since it is contested by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The readers of Wikipedia can be best served by having sourced facts presented about the details of the schism, which have been requested.

Wikipedia has processes, policies, and guidelines. So far, you are having difficulty in learning to comply with them. If you think that other Wikipedians are being unreasonable, then we can resort to one of Wikipedia's processes, which is mediation. If you do not want mediation, please provide us with facts and sources. I provided the facts that I could from an external link. If you have the other facts and sources, please provide them. Robert McClenon 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts everyone is making to have the article be suitable to everyone. Some of the changes to the article were not entirely accurate and required tweaking, deleting, or adding to, as follows: As has been pointed out several times, and by several users, this is an article about Pastor Russell, not Bible Students or JWs. Therefore, any links or statements that show favor to either of these groups do not belong in this article. I removed one of the two links from the 'exjws' website because it was regarding JWs, not Pastor Russell. The first one is biographical, but the one removed is inappropriate for this article. As far as removing the phrase "Official CT Russell website" - that is a big, HUGE slap in the face to the thousands of Bible Students worldwide. There is no "estate", as Pastor Russell had no heirs. There are numerous homepages made by Bible Students worldwide, but only the Pastor-Russell.com website representative of the whole by consensus. The statement made about JWs changing the date for Armageddon, etc... does not apply to Pastor Russell, but solely to JWs. The Bible Students still see 1914/1915 as the beginning of the process of the breaking down of the nations in an Armageddon process. If everyone desires a statement about Armageddon (which I see as appropriate), it should be in the Theology section, and stated in a way which accurately represents the views of CHARLES RUSSELL, not the movement which followed after his death. Thank you. PastorRussell 18:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how removing "Official CT Russell website" is a "HUGE slap in the face" to Bible Students. An "official" website of a deceased person must be controlled by the estate of that person, otherwise how is it official? There are thousands of websites about Elvis, but only one official one (http://www.elvis.com), because it is controlled by his estate. When I checked your website, I couldn't find anything stating that it is under the control of his estate, so I removed that claim from Wikipedia, as it is POV and not verified. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please take a step back and look at what you are saying. Pastor Russell HAS no estate. He had no heirs. Bible Students do not believe in organized christianity such as do JWs. They have an "official" site. Ours is not under a central organization. Pastor-Russell.com is the official CT Russell website, and to deny that fact is to slap us in the face. Efforts have been made to work together here, and they have so far been successful. Please join in, and consider the reality of the situation. Removing that phrase from the link, whilst leaving links to anti-jw and anti-Russell sites is the height of hypocrisy and a destruction of the neutrality of the article. It's too bad that I feel anything I say will be taken out of context and seen as hostile. PastorRussell 02:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You missed the point of what I was saying. I mean no disrespect to you or any Bible Student. I'm simply stating that only a site that is controlled by the estate of a deceased person can accurately be termed "official". For your POV, you carry on his legacy, but from a NPOV point of view, only an estate controlled site can be termed "official" in a Wikipedia article. Flammifer's comment below explains it nicely. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should qualify certain cites as being "official" without grounds. Apart from being under control of the estate, I don't see what criterion can be used to decide if a website is official or not - the "official" tag shouldn't be give to any site only based on their word. Do the Jesus Christ or Martin Luther articles point to "official" sites ? (Also, something being a slap in the face to anybody has never carried much weight in shaping wikipedia policy) Flammifer 06:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue doesn't seem to have been raised before ... I posted a little comment about it over here. Flammifer 07:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed one of the two links from the 'exjws' website because it was regarding JWs, not Pastor Russell

It comes from an online book, and the standard Wikipedia citation format, both for books and electronic equivalents, is to cite both the chapter and overall title. On balance, the second link is unnecessary as the top menu is easily found, but the title is required. Tearlach

Okay, now I'm upset ... Why are you adding that??? It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Pastor Russell!!! Why don't you just add a link to Henry Ford while you're at it because he criticised Rutherford, who knew Pastor Russell. Your reference makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is biased and not at all neutral. This is insanity. You guys are picking everything apart, and while claiming neutrality keep breaking it yourself, and fight against anyone who shows it up. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could justify adding references on Maybelline lip gloss. PastorRussell 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There should be nothing to get upset about. Read those links about book citation format. You cite a chapter; you have to cite the book too. Tearlach 19:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I just read further, and the book most certainly is relevant to Russell. Apart from the Chapter II general biography, Chapter IV is largely about financial scandals surrounding him, and the start of Chapter VI covers the final years of his life when he was losing control of the organisation. Tearlach 14:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Early life

Some good progress has been made on the introduction, despite the revert war. I think now we should focus on the Early life section.

My feeling is that it has a lot of extraneous detail. Is Russell's mother's maiden name important? Is it relevant to list the name and dates of birth and death of each of his siblings? --K. 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, for a famous individual with non-famous relatives, the consensus on VfD is to merge articles on those relatives to the article on the famous person. Based on that, I'd say that including basic biographical information on his immediate family is a good idea. --Carnildo 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Siblings

Can anyone fill in the gaps for Russell's siblings?

1. Frank (1850 - 4 September 1855), died from whooping cough (at what age? 4? 5?)
2. Charles Taze II (16 February 1852 - 31 October 1916) (I'm assuming he was second)
3. Margaret/"Mae" (? - late 1940s), married name Margaret Land (we need a source for her death and I'm assuming she was third)
4. Lucinda (1857 - 1858)
5. Joseph Jr. (1859 - 1860)

--K. 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Armageddon

I added a bit on his views on the end of times. Sources : [6], [7] and [8]

Those contain citations from the watchtower from that time, if those are contested they can be looked up. Flammifer 08:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea: the article as it stands doesn't convey how colossally they screwed the pooch with failed end of times predictions.

BTW, I'm not keen on that Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh page. The account of his death is very sensationalized: the contemporary accounts show he'd been getting progressively iller for at least a day, and the "wrap me in a Roman toga" makes him sound a nutter. In context, it makes sense: his blankets kept slipping off, and he asked a colleague to pin them at his shoulders like a Roman toga to stop this. Tearlach 12:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, I ask you nicely, when sourcing Pastor Russell's views on anything, please use a Bible Student or neutral party as a source. JWs are not a neutral party, nor are Catholics, etc... In fact, if you want to know something, ask me. I'm a Bible Student, and my family goes back to the days of Pastor Russell. I think I know what he believed better than a Catholic website. I'm sure your intentions were good, however. PastorRussell 18:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The best is probably to refer to his writings at the time, which can be found all over the net, I've seen several sites offering searcheable versions of the Watchtower.

As for the links above, they are imperfect sources, but do you question their quotes from the warchtower ? I didn't take them too much to the word.

I agree that the section I added may need work, but I have put it back in in the meantime. The bit on the second coming since 1874 is now mentioned elsewhere, but him seeing 1914 as the Armageddon should probably be mentioned. I think those things fit better in the chronological order than in the theology section, but that's debateable.

Also, in order to stick to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, we can't just take your word on what he believed. However, you can probably find relevant quotes, especially on his vision of the outbreak of WWI.

(also, if you don't mind, I've moved your comments a little bit so the order of the conversation doesn't seem too akward) Flammifer 18:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I removed the part about 1874 and the Second Advent was because it is mentioned in the Theology section and didn't want it to seem redundant. Having it there is fine, and I have no quarrel with it. However, the line about JWs and 1914 is inappropriate. This is an article about Pastor Russell, not JW doctrine. Your line belongs on the JW page, and how they changed their doctrinal and prophetical viewpoints. If you disagree, please think about it seriously, and realize what that line is saying. Bible Students changed nothing. JWS are a movement following his death, and prior to that statement, there is nothing about JW doctrine. If you wish to include it, it would, at best, belong in the paragraph about Rutherford in the Death and Aftermath section. PastorRussell 18:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, it would probably fit better in another section, either death and aftermath, or maybe a section dedicated to the survival of his theology - how much of it can still be found in current JW doctrines, in other splinter groups, in more mainstream groups, etc. Flammifer 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(hehe, edit conflict, I had written this : )

Hmm, you removed :

The Jehovah's Witnesses later changed their doctrine, holding 1914 as the date of the Second Coming.

I believe that fact is relevant, though it would probably need to be stated in a different way. A lot of the original fundamental doctrine of the JWs was Pastor Russell's theology, even though it seems they changed quite a bit (especially the dates) afterwards. A bit of info on that lineage would be useful in the article somewhere, especially considering that the JWs have been criticized for changing the dates (by, say, the Layman's Home Missionary Movement, who split off because of that). Flammifer 18:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact is not relevant to an article on Pastor Russell, it is only relevant to the JWs. If you are going to add something about JW doctrinal changes, then it would require balance by adding Bible Student doctrinal views, neither of which belong here, but only on their own respective pages. You are right that the item is significant, but not in this artile. As far as changing dates and the movement is concerned, you are thinking of the Pastoral Bible Institute, not the Layman's. PastorRussell 18:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

A section on "survival Pastor Russel's theology in present-day movements" (or something a bit shorter and less fuzzy) is probably an adequate solution. It *is* relevant that some of his teachings are still alive and widely publicized today, and it *is* relevant that the JWs claim him as a founder - highlighted what changed and what stayed the same is probably worthwhile. Flammifer 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(Sigh. I give up.) Former reply. New reply: I think your idea is a good one, but as I'm sure you would agree, it is of the utmost importance that balance and fairness are in mind when working on such a section. At the same time, it must be remembered this article is about Pastor Russell, not the Bible Students, not the JWs, not anyone else. It is about the man. I'm glad we are finally beginning to work together rather than being in opposition. Working together involves compromise, sacrifice, and no ego. PastorRussell 18:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

General wikifying

Any thoughts on this? Currently, the verbosity and Edwardian flavour don't look very encyclopedic to me. The pages for other evangelists make interesting comparison: John Wesley in particular suggests possible sub-headings - such as Literary works - that could be useful in organising it into smaller paragraphs. Tearlach 12:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive1 created

I've archived discussions that have (mostly) reached closure or are just preamble to the current dispute to Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1. The first entry there summarises the archive. Best check to see if I've snipped anything important that I shouldn't.

New readers note that this article is in a NPOV dispute, and a dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, is ongoing. Tearlach 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Divorce ?

In a letter to the editor, it's said :

Next, you commented: "He [Rutherford] became the legal counsel of the Jehovah’s Witnesses society and Charles Taze Russell’s attorney in his divorce proceedings and his ‘miracle wheat’ scandal". There are a few problems with this oft repeated account of matters. Let us see what the data show.

The records show that in June 1903 Charles’ wife, Marie Frances Russell, filed in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a suit for legal separation-- not divorce. Furthermore, on March 4, 1908 the decree of the court was that the two were legally separated--not divorced.

Anybody know about the early century legalese involved ? Is there truly a distinction between divorced and "legally seperated" ? o.O

Also, the bit on the sexual misconduct with the dactilographer could probably take some closer inquiry. The divorce (or whatever it was) wasn't filed for adultery, though it seems fairly likely that there was some.

A dactilographer is a secretary who types. A stenographer is a secretary who takes short-hand. Robert McClenon 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(That letter to the editor has some interesting stuff, the miracle wheat thing probably isn't worth reporting though) Flammifer 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a disputed point. The Barbara G Harrison account (hostile but well-referenced enough to check) has a detailed timeline and argues that it was actually a divorce, but that JWs portrayed it as a separation or "partial divorce" for the lesser stigma. Tearlach 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

I've seperated "Theology, Teachings, and Influence " into "Theology and Teachings" and "Legacy", and reworked the "Legacy" part.

I mainly took out two statements that may have there place there but could take some work :

The effect of Pastor Russell's studies and ministry can be seen in the change of doctrine throughout Protestantism since the early 20th century.

and

Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell.

The first one doesn't look very NPOV to me, and the second insinuates something that would need proving (that this change was due to Pastor Russell). Was he the first one to have such a view ?

So something could still be added on the influence outside of the direct successors of the movement he founded (if there was such an influence), and eventually on the partial abandonment of his teachings by the JW. Flammifer 21:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Locking attempt

For general information, now noted in the RfC, check out Pastorrussell's recent attempt to have the article permanently locked in his preferred version: [9]

The admin who commented on the request is now endorsing the RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Charles Taze Russell. Tearlach 23:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw it. That was placed during the heat of battle, so to speak. Everyone was going willy nilly trying to put in anything they wanted or could think of, but none of it dealing with Pastor Russell. Most of it dealt with JWs, and that is unfair. Not because I am a Bible Student writing this, but simply because it was wrong. A conscientious JW would do the same as I, since they would probably have access to 75% of the sources I have. PastorRussell 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What NPOV really means

Pastorrussell, some of your posts give evidence that you aren't fully aware of the NPOV policy's implications. I hope this will help in making clear Wikipedia policy.

NPOV doesn't mean no POV is allowed. It means that POVs must be expressed with the qualification that it is the POV of a particular group, and not stated as fact.

For example, it is a fact that Russell started 3 corporations that are now controlled by JW. What Russell intended to happen to those corporations cannot be determined, so the article should include that JWs claim that they come from Russell, and that the Bible Students claim that they come from Russell. That both groups claim to be from Russell is a fact, and maintains neutrality. However, to state which one did come from Russell is POV.

In addition, if a statement about the POV of a side is included, this does not require a counter-statement or claim from the other side. There is no required "balancing" of claims from each side. Countless POV wars happen on Wikipedia because a minority wants equal space in an article. But that isn't what Wikipedia is about. Generally, space is devoted according to the size of the group represented.

This may seem unfair, but it is necessary. An encyclopedia doesn't strive to present all POVs. It strives to inform what is generally accepted, and any significant alternates. I urge you to read Wikipedia:NPOV in full, as the main reason for the original NPOV dispute and the subsequent RfC result from your apparent misconceptions about what NPOV means. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be fair the JW don't seem to put *too* heavy an emphasis on their lineage from Russell - see this (already linked to by tearlach earlier) :

In all my years as a Witness-including the three years I spent at Watchtower headquarters-no one ever mentioned the Russells, least of all the old-timers, who, when past presidents of the Watchtower Society were mentioned, discoursed on the fact that they didn't follow "personalities" or "any man," but only God's organization.

... whereas the Bible Students do still (apparently) consider Russell holds a major place.

(In the recommended readings category, I'd also add Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Flammifer 12:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally, Russell isn't mentioned at all, but in the official JW history book Proclaimers, a great deal of information is given about him and what they claim was the start of the JW organisation. They quite definitely say he was the beginning of the JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I've left this article for a while, but now looking at it fresh, the first paragraph is a bit misleading. It seems to indicate that ZWTTS had two breakaway groups: first the BS in 1917 and then the JW in 1931. In addition, the Watchtower was founded before the ZWTTS, so it should probably be mentioned first.

Can I suggest this as an intro:

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), also known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist. In 1879 he founded the religious journal "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence", still published today as The Watchtower. In 1881 he founded one of the first Bible Societies in America, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. A schism in 1917 led to the modern sects known as the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Any comments? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think putting the magazine first detracts from the larger acts and puts the magazine in an unfairly prominent light. The magazine is currently most closely tied to JWs and as a result the first thing a person would be reading would give them the idea that Pastor Russell is connected or tied to the JWs which is a false impression. That would be a dishonest thing to do. But I see your point of putting things in date order. It makes sense to me. Your rewording of the schism also looks just fine to me as you put it. As a matter of historical note, the WTS had numerous break-away groups at varying times. Those who formed the Stand-Fasters broke away in 1914. Those who formed the modern Bible Students broke away in 1917, and so on, &c. In fact, once Rutherford died, there were split groups rejecting any changes after his death, too. Here is my suggested intro. We're both close on this, so it shouldn't take more than a few hours to get this one pounded out:

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is known for founding the religious journal "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" in 1879, and one of the first Bible Societies in America, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, in 1881. A schism in 1917 led to the modern sects known as the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

PastorRussell 15:44, 03 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I'd just take out the "He is known for...", and replace with "He founded". See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That substitution looks fine. It's less cumbersome. If there is no objection from others, I think you should go ahead and post it. PastorRussell 05:24, 04 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about replacement of intro

I'm not so sure about the new intro. I think the previous one was more specific, and frankly more accurate. Does anyone outside of the Bible Student use the term Bible Student Movement, or has it been invented at Wikipedia? If it's not a term in use, it shouldn't really be used here either. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The original intro we both worked on was perfectly fine, more accurate, and gracefully worded. The new one is very course. I'd change it back but am sick and tired of the people who cause me trouble for doing it. It's impossible to please everyone, which is even more frustrating considering none of these people respect the Pastor or the work he did. PastorRussell 05:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "Bible Student Movement" has been used outside of Wikipedia, though admittedly not *that much*. Hmm, maybe "Bible Student movement" (no capital letter) would be better :-P I created the page mainly becaue it seemed easier to write about than Bible Students or Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups - talking about the movement as a whole makes more sense.

I reverted the intro, but I still think that refering to the Bible Student movement in general may be better. At least, presenting things as a schism that led to the JWs and the Bible Students is overly simplistic. Some "Bible Students" left before his death, and there are more than two groups concerned. Flammifer 06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the original intro can be improved, and it's probably a good idea to rename the other page to Bible Student movement. I think though that the movement more or less revolves around the WT companies that Russell founded. Groups split off from them when they disagreed or thought the leaders were going in the wrong direction. Using "movement" IMHO gives a misleading impression. I think using "schism" and "splinter" is more accurate, as long as the other splits are documented and at least alluded to in the intro. Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion would probably better fit on that page, but I think it's more than splinter groups. Most (all ?) groups split before the JWs took that name, some even before Russell died. Maybe there could be a better name, but I think that the name shouldn't reference the JWs. Flammifer 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I renamed the "Bible Student Movement" to "Bible Student movement", which makes more sense. For the record, the version of the intro before I reverted was :

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who founded what is known as the Bible Student Movement. The most prominent association in the modern era are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Groups such as the Bible Students assert a closer association to his teachings.

I just noticed that in reverting I had left in a bit about the Bible Student movement. left it there, but feel free to rework.

Also, the "Bible Students" page was moved to "Associated Bible Students" since it mainly concerned those. I'm not sure about that move, but it seemed the best way to represent the fact that there are other groups like the "Free Bible Students" who were not covered. Admittedly, nowdays "Bible Students" alone seems to refer only to the "Associated Bible Students". As for the Bible Student movement page, I chose the name not based on current use but to avoid ambiguity (For something similar, China doesn't point to the People's Republic of China even though it's used in that sense in 99.9% of cases) Flammifer 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flammifer. I think the best thing is the make the intro two paragraphs so a bit more info can go in. It's a complicated subject so more info will make it clear. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(I moved a bit of the discussion to Talk:Associated Bible Students, it fits better over there Flammifer 03:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) )

Wikifying and abridgement

A repost of a comment by DavidH 06:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC) in [Wikipedia talk: Requests for comment/Pastorrussell]:

Finally, I think the article is just too long. It should be a biographical sketch, not the definitive discussion of every relevant idea.

I agree. Certainly the paragraph lengths and overall article length aren't looking good by the standards advised in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Layout.

Is there material than can be split off? For instance, posthumous developments could go to the Bible Students article.

Is there material that could be just trimmed without losing salient points? For instance, does the article need every twist and turn in the falling-out with Barbour? Tearlach 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been digging into the history of Russell, the JWs and associated groups. I've started a page on Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups (I'm not entirely satisfied with that name), and I definitely think a lot of info on the posthumous developments could be moved over there. Note however that some left the movement Russell founded before his death, and some left after the JWs changed their name. Flammifer 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the premise that this article should be shortened some. In fact, I attempted to do this rather early on in this process and Tom, Dick and Harry objected. It is difficult to find just what should be removed that satisfies, or at least doesn't create objection, from all. There are salient points which can be abridged in effective ways. I will make an attempt to do this later tonite (being a Bible Student and best knowing what is salient) and see what happens. The unfortunate thing is that as one thing is removed, even if there is no objection, there are others who believe something else should be added. There are innumerable topics that can appear in this article. Perhaps it shall never be "done". PastorRussell 00:07, 07 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the John Wesley is a good model. It's a trifle long, but broken up into short paragraphs and sections for clarity. There is most certainly worthwhile material that could go in, such as reference to the Photo Drama of Creation.

I think the worst offending section currently is "The Beginnings of his Ministry". He formed a partnership with Barbour; it split up over their different interpretations of the non-appearance of the Rapture. It doesn't need some 650 words to explain this. There's a pretty good version of this section on 28th February 2005. Tearlach 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Down by 250 words: that's a start. I've split it into sections. Tearlach 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouch ... "a start"?? I spent three hours working on abridgment. Many of the sections have very tiny paragraphs now. It's practically down to bare bones. It could not be cut any further without removing salient points. The points remaining aren't merely useless information, but required to indicate necessary biographical information. It would take great skill to further abridge the remaining details, but I'll certainly give it a try. "You can't please all the people all of the time". By the way, those 250 words weren't the total cuts. It also included adding the section on the Great Pyramid and other info, so the cuts were larger than that. PastorRussell 19:05, 07 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouch ... "a start"?? Yep. I was thinking about 50%. You can help if you want. One area is just excessive phraseology. Tearlach 00:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, more like 80% - 90%. "Help if I want" is a rather inappropriate phrase. Bible Students are the ones with the expertise to work on this article, so you are the one that can "help if you want". The article is already bare bones. I've done more work to this article than all of you other guys combined. Not a single thanks, or act of appreciation or willingness to bend on anything anywhere, just constant criticism and rudeness and pushing. And you wonder why I'm getting frustrated with you all. PastorRussell 05:23, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Posthumous history moved to Bible Students. Tearlach 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell: please stop padding the text out with fiddling phraseology with edits like this. It produces minimally greater accuracy, at the expense of verbiage that detracts from the overall readability. Tearlach 19:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Pyramidology ?

Something on pyramidology should probably be added too. Here's a link with a bit of info.

In fact it's still current: check out Chart of the Ages. Tearlach 03:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've found a detailed analysis of the attributions behind Russell's acquaintance with it: here. It comes from an article by David J. Penton and M. James Penton at watchtower.observer.org, cached here. It ought, then, also to be mentioned in the Beginnings section: George Storrs was heavily into it. Tearlach 12:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Those analyses are quite off the mark as to the how and why Pastor Russell and Bible Students use and analyze the Great Pyramid. My reference to it in the Teachings section is not an off-topic comment, but part of the body of theological differences from other Protestants. Pyramidology has taken on a somewhat occultic frame of reference in the days since the late 1960s. Our use of it, however, has nothing to do with the occult, and everything to do with the Bible. Additionally, the use of a pyramid shape in the Chart of the Ages has no reference to the Great Pyramid at all. Our belief (and Pastor Russell's) is that the Bible both uses and mentions pyramid shapes numerous times. The shape is used in the Chart to convey an idea very similar to the recently famous "Food Pyramid" - that those at the bottom represent the larger groups, and those things at the top represent the smaller. The Chart is a symbolic outline of the Bible and God's plan for humanity. Our use of the Great Pyramid is on a different plane altogether. (no pun intended) We believe that the history of mankind is outlined in the Pyramid, and that it was built as a monument by Shem, one of Noah's sons, by inspiration/direction of God. The ancient Egyptian culture formed AROUND the pyramid and its mystical symbology. No other pyramid on earth has ascending passageways, only the Great Pyramid does, and they were only discovered in the 19th century. We believe that one should not study the Pyramid at the expense of the Bible. Only the direct word of God should be the devotion of believers in the salvation of Jesus Christ. However, we are convinced, based on prophetic statements in scripture, and the evident harmony of the Pyramid, that it was built under God's direction and meant to be understood only in our day. This has also been part of Jewish tradition, especially in the first century. The Essenes are known to have studied the purpose of the Great Pyramid under the belief it was built by God for some 'mystical' purpose. To include the names of all individuals Pastor Russell referred to in studying the Great Pyramid would create a problem since nearly all of the truths espoused by the Pastor were compiled from others who brought them forth. In other words, view A came from ministers x,y,z; view B came from ministers q,r.s, etc... etc... There is nothing unique or different with Smyth and the Edgar brothers (whose works Bible Students publish and distribute) PastorRussell 18:16, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

If you examine Russell's writings you'll find quite clear references to the Great Pyramid, and not only to a pyramid shape. For example, measurements of the Great Pyramid were used to calculate Christ's return. See http://quotes.watchtower.ca/pyramid.htm for numerous quotes. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite. The discussions with George Storrs and George Stetson at the preamble of Russell's ministry were not just about the Bible, but also very specific conversations about pyramid measurements. User:Tearlach 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think your advice should apply more to you than myself. I've been reading Pastor Russell's writings since I could first read. I have a pretty good grasp on what he taught and the history, definitely more than either of you, if for no other reason than that I've read everything he ever wrote. You missed the point of my previous comments, and I'd ask you to read them again more carefully. The use of the pyramid shape in the Chart of the Ages has no connection to the Great Pyramid, but rather, to the concept that the Bible uses and mentions pyramid shapes, and also that the pyramid shape is able to show the size of the church (really tiny) comparred to the entirety of all humanity (really large). The shape on the Chart of the Ages is not the Great Pyramid. It is a symbol using a pyramid shape. Now, yes, Pastor Russell (and Bible Students to this day, myself included) talked about and studied the Great Pyramid. We have examined every inch and shape of the structure, and come to some significant conclusions about things, including calculations of dates, etc... But it must be understood that this took the form of more a 'hobby' than a center of focus. Russell learned more about 'pyramidology' from Barbour than Stetson and Storrs combined. He began to study the matter, and investigated it in study with the group in Pittsburgh. This is where the views were 'pounded out' as it were, and formulated into a logical and cohesive perspective. The sum total of Russell's writings on the Pyramid are tiny comparred to the entire library. Pyramids are not the end all and be all of Pastor Russell's writings, and it is a mistake to assume that it is. Important point: Pastor Russell never used the Great Pyramid to calculate Christ's return, merely to corraborate a conclusion already made by use of the Bible. This statement applies to every date. (Bible first, pyramid backs up) PastorRussell 05:14, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Pyramids are not the end all and be all of Pastor Russell's writings, and it is a mistake to assume that it is.

No-one here has assumed that.

The shape on the Chart of the Ages is not the Great Pyramid..

Or that. Nevertheless, the chronological frame on the Chart of the Ages is the same as that shown in other Bible Students literature as correlating with the Great Pyramid A Bible in Stone. As for it being just a 'hobby', it's not as if he was interested in, say, stamp collecting, and put a chapter about it in one of his books. As Thy Kingdom Come, Ch. X shows, it was integral - obviously secondarily to the Bible - to his religious belief system. Tearlach 17:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I must be failing somewhere in conveying some important and salient concepts to you, although trying quite hard, so I apologize in that. The purpose of referencing *anything* with the Great Pyramid, at any juncture, is merely to show that it has a purpose, and to illustrate that it was built by God, in our (and Pastor Russell's) belief. It is not secondary to the Bible, it does not replace the Bible, its study does not bring salvation, and, in fact, anyone who spends too much time studying it is advised to not spend so much time on it, although it is thier choice and freedom to do so. Indeed, we (and Pastor Russell) respect its symbology and believe God's intention was to show the various planes of existence He intended, and planned, in dealing with humankind, and other specific aspects of His plan, to show He knows the end from the beginning. Most Bible Students don't even mention it on a daily basis. In a years time it may come up, even in study of the volumes, three or four times in a year. My discussion of this topic here is the first time I've probably even mentioned it this year, despite the fact I have a good knowledge of it. To ever attempt to show Pastor Russell (or Bible Students) spent an inordinate amount of time on it, or put it in such an esteemed place that it took up an entire chapter of volume three is off base. The purpose of the volumes is to touch on each and every topic/point of truth in a logical and appropriate order, the Great Pyramid and its message being merely one. It is in the third volume, not the first or second. If you ever pick up a volume and see what topics are touched on in previous chapters will note that entire chapters are devoted to one topic. Picking out the Pyramid, and forcing the point that it has a pre-eminent position is showing an ignorance of the purpose of the volumes, and Pastor Russell's (and Bible Students) perspective on it. It is one point in a myriad. It is interesting and significant. It warrants study as one point of truth. Yet, it holds no pre-eminent position in Pastor Russells (or Bible Students) field of study. One might use the word "integral" to refer to a part of a whole, or to indicate it is more important than anything else. In this case, "integral" would of necessity refer to the former when discussing this topic, not the latter. Yet, the Tabernacle is also integral, and so is the Jubilee system of ancient Israel, and the gentile dominion of the world's governments (gentile times). It all makes up part of a whole, yet none of them are pre-eminent, and have no place as most important. It is necessary to mention it as a part of Pastor Russell's (or Bible Students) theological perspectives, but not a place of highest esteem. Surely that is what you meant, and surely that is what you understand to be the case. It is essential to make this point clear as many have misunderstood the use of studying the Great Pyramid, and given it undue focus. PastorRussell 19:49, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, hold your water! Nobody has said it's central, just that it ought to be mentioned, because it is mentioned in Russell's works and on Bible Students web sites. Tearlach 23:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Official/Chief website by Bible Students

To repeat the comment made on the Bible Students talk page: We follow a congregational style of order, and therefore have no central "headquarters." This means that each congregation (Ecclesia) is independent of another. If your definition of 'official' means that something is run by an estate or central headquarters then we have two problems: (1) your definition is too narrow, and (2) nobody outside of our congregations has an 'official' anything. It's important to understand that WE operate differently and function differently. Certain entries in Wikipedia entries are broad and cover many areas, groups, and functions, and shouldn't be made to narrowly follow only one set order of things down to the very word else other groups with different modes of functioning are ignored and left out. Let me give you an example of the idea: when the Evangelical Alliance was formed in 1845 the Quakers and a few other groups objected to certain clauses of their charter because it would leave them out, in essence ignoring their existence. So, certain words were changed to acknowledge the problem and become more inclusive. As another example, the process of ordination merely means that one has been chosen by any group of Christian individuals that agree to make one an elder, pastor, etc... It has nothing to do with being associated with an accredited organized religion. If one were to assume that, then nobody can ever be considered chosen ("ordained") for anything. That is, no minister outside of organized Christianity would have any validity. Under that assumption no Wikipedia entry of a minister would be 'proper' because 'he isn't properly ordained.' The Pastor-Russell.com website is the official website by general agreement of Bible Students. Why do you think we have that URL? You must be more inclusive of how we operate, else you become part of a machine that refuses to acknowledge the existence and processes of other groups. In this context of our discussion it is a more serious matter as it does in fact refuse to acknowledge us. So, I changed the word to "chief" in order to placate to the objection of a minority few. Then even THAT is objected to. Nothing, not a thing, is ever acknowledge or appreciated. I've bent over backwards and made myself sicker than I already am due to the unfair changes and inane actions made by some of you. If it does, in fact, kill me to defend the truth, then I will do so. Does that sound overly dramatic or even strange to you? Think about it for a moment, and put yourself in my shoes. You've done most of the work on something, others want it changed, so you change according to their wishes. They don't acknowledge it, or thank you, but keep running over you with change, after change, after change asking for more and never satisfied. Israel is battered the same way to give up land for peace. Despite constant efforts, they are constantly criticised and never appreciated. I'm starting to feel like Israel here. PastorRussell 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think we have that URL?

Because you happened to be the first to buy the domain name; just as individual persons and Ecclesia got biblestudents.com, biblestudents.net and biblestudents.org without being chief sites in any sense.

Does that sound overly dramatic or even strange to you?

I'm sorry you're ill (I don't wish that on anyone). But please don't use it to guilt-trip me. You've been told many times what Neutral Point of View means, with specific reference to NPOV#Religion. It goes into detail explaining how you can expect "critical historical treatments" of religious topics, not merely the history as seen by believers.

Furthermore, every single time you press Save Page, you buy into the agreement If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. These are the stated conditions of participation on Wikipedia. I'm not going to feel guilt if you don't accept these, yet still participate, then complain that it's stressful and upsetting to deal with others working according to those conditions. Tearlach 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you considered my statement regarding illness to be a guilt-trip. It was merely an intent to point out that I will stand my ground regardless of the consequences. This is not a debate about a religion, nor religious views, but the accurate, unbiased representation of the life of a man - Charles Taze Russell. There is not, nor ever will be, an "Official Bible Student website". Should anyone ever use that term I'd be the first to disagree. However, the statement that Pastor-Russell.com is the "official PASTOR RUSSELL website" is an accurate statement. The website is documentary, and not doctrinal. It is accepted by Bible Students as the official website. Did some committee proclaim it 'official'? No. That is because we do not operate in that fashion. This is why the website appears under the name of the webmaster, not an Ecclesia, because it would create dissension for there to be an Ecclesia overseeing the Pastor Russell website as there are many different Bible Students. We have an 'official' archivist, not because a committee apointed him thus, but because he is accepted as the official archivist. This matter goes beyond what you may consider to be "official" into what WE consider to be "official" as we are the direct descendants of Pastor Russell's doctrinal and ministerial heritage. Those points must be taken into consideration when attemtping to bring logic to this discussion. PastorRussell 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Prove it's official, in whatever sense you claim it to be. Anything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Tearlach 12:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

What neutrality issues remain? The article has been significantly changed from what it was when the NPOV was added. The wiki tag was removed, it is time for the NPOV tag to be removed, as well. PastorRussell 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What neutrality issues remain?

In my view, it's still a hagiography, with continuing source bias: the majority of citation is drawn by a sympathetic interpreter from contemporary sources already sympathetic to Russell.

What did contemporary critics, such as the Brooklyn Daiyl Eagle, say about him? How do modern critics, whether religious or secular, interpret the history: for instance, Barbara M. Harrison (see here and here) or M. James Penton?

Nearly all of that is glossed over as "Russell, however, had many critics, and was labled a heretic, amongst other things. As he became more prominent the number of critics increased". Tearlach 18:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Then let's begin a section called "Criticisms". I have no opposition to that, as long as it is added as part of the history, and not for the very same reasons I was bashed for in other discussions. It should be based on truth, and not someones POINT OF VIEW, of which many criticisms are. A "criticisms" section existed at one time but was opposed by someone, so it was removed. This again illustrates that nobody will EVER be pleased with this article and will perpetually be considered "unbiased" by someone. That is inherently unfair because even a printed encyclopedia has a final version. PastorRussell 18:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK - as long as it doesn't preclude criticisms in context also. Tearlach 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a few issues remain - while rereading the article, there are still some points that struck me as "hey, that's not very neutral". However, I think the NPOV can probably go in the near future. You've done some great work on this article, pastorrussell :) Flammifer 03:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your recognition of my efforts to make the article more neutral. It's been very difficult to try and please the alternate and widely varying views of many. Indeed, the NPOV should go soon as there are very few spots where one could find a lack of neutrality. PastorRussell 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better. However, I think the lack of neutrality has shifted from overt to covert. As I said above, there's a deal of remaining POV by omission of negative material. Tearlach 18:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

...and no reason for anonymous removal of the NPOV tag. So what about it? If this is supposed to be neutral, where's the Miracle Wheat scandal? Or the time Pastor Russell was shown up in court as lying about his claimed ability to read the Greek alphabet? Tearlach 23:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was really hitting below the belt and far from any form of ethical discourse. I did not remove the NPOV tag anonymously. If I wanted to remove the tag I would do so openly. My IP address is 71.65.65.165. I am currently working on a criticisms section which will be up in two days with both sides to accusations, but have been quite ill, as I've told you before. I've had two surgeries in two months. Knock off the false accusations and act like a professional or I will have absolutely no respect for you. You owe me an apology. PastorRussell 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You're in no position to play the professional conduct or ethical discourse cards: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell is still ongoing. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle thought he was a crook. The historical existence of such a view, and the evidence that supported it, shouldn't be swept under the carpet. Tearlach 12:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been over zealous, but never once unprofessional or unethical. Your conduct is beyond unacceptable. Your rewording and reworking of sections is appalling. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle was a scandal rag, akin to the New York Post or the London Sun. There are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and a budding college history professor who are Bible Students. If any of us believed for a moment that Pastor Russell was a crook we'd never step within 100 feet of anything connected to him. You're putting me on the defense, and I do not like that. You are testing my patience despite the fact I have been extremely patient with you - you who have just proven in your statement that you have no interest in neutrality, but only to prove him a 'crook'. I've never swept ANYTHING under the carpet and I'm extremely offended by your conduct and wild assumptions. This article doesn't belong to you. You have no connections to Pastor Russell or Bible Students. You know very little of our history, and have presented it in very unclear ways. If you do not stop this ridiculous behavior I will immediately report you to the administrators of Wikipedia, who have already told me in email that they support my efforts to keep this article free of your form of bias, and the fact you aren't even a Bible Student and are attempting to write our history. PastorRussell 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and a budding college history professor who are Bible Students.

See Appeal to authority.

you who have just proven in your statement that you have no interest in neutrality, but only to prove him a 'crook'.

Not at all. My personal view is that he was sincerely deeply religious (but with the infinite capacity for self-justification that comes from that mindset) and steeped in the prejudices of his era (some of the reasons for the editorial dispute wth his wife, that she had been swayed by ideas of "women's rights", are fairly repulsive by modern standards).

who have already told me in email that they support my efforts to keep this article free of your form of bias

Prove it. Who e-mailed you? What did they say? Tearlach 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide Church of God

Hmm, any evidence that the Worldwide Church of God was influenced by Russell ? It was founded in 1933 and I see no mention of the Bible Students, Pastor Russell or the JWs in it's history or that of his founder, and google apparently doesn't find anything either. Flammifer 12:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In the early documents of the WCG, Armstrong praised the efforts of Pastor Russell as guiding him "out of darkness". In a short period of time, all references to Russell were removed and Armstrong was seen as the sole supporter of their doctrinal standing. Many of their views accord to the teachings of Pastor Russell, such as the non-existence of Hellfire, lack of belief in the Trinity, to name a few. PastorRussell 12:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, any sources / links on this ? I can't find anything with Google. I don't consider that their teachings being similar is enough. Maybe a note could be added on the artcles about the WCG or Armstrong ? Flammifer 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, what's the historical connection with the Layman's Home Missionary Movement? Some anonymous editor keeps adding The Bible Standard link, but that site makes no reference to Russell in its historical outline. Tearlach 15:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

They were founded by Paul S. L. Johnson, who was one of the Watchtower Society board members kicked out by Rutherford in 1918; " Johnson taught since Russell was the Parousia Messenger during the Lord's parousia, he must be the Epiphany Messenger, during the Lord's Epiphany" [10]. Flammifer 16:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is some history: The LHMM, as just mentioned, is a group who formed around P.S.L. Johnson. He was Pastor Russell's closest and dearest friend, helping him word and formulate many of his later views. In 1917/1918 his activities in London were called into question by Rutherford, and he was called back to the United States. According to Rutherford in "Harvest Siftings", Johnson was causing a great deal of trouble at the Brooklyn "Bethel", and was expelled. In an attempt to maintain the clarity of the message preached by Pastor Russell, he established the magazine "Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany" in December, 1918. He eventually came to consider himself the "Epiphany Messenger", and the last member of the "little flock". At his death it was believed that there were no more places left in the 144,000. The successor to Johnson, Raymond Jolly, believed he was the last member of the "great multitude". As a result, all remaining members of the movement believe they will live on earth as a group called "the modern worthies", as opposed to "the ancient worthies" who are the Biblical prophets of old which Pastor Russell taught would be the administrators of God's Kingdom on Earth. The "Present Truth" magazine continues to be printed, as well as other journals, such as "The Bible Standard". The individual placing the link doesn't seem to realize the link belongs in the "Bible Students" article. Perhaps they see that now. PastorRussell 12:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Zionism

Maybe something about Zionism should be put in ?

Apparently Pastor Russell was an early supporter of it, and the Jews played an important role in his vision. It also seems that this helped get the JW in trouble in Nazi Germany.

I've seen a few Bible Students groups who talk quite a bit about Israel (so yeah, this probably also concerns the Bible Student movement or Associated Bible Students articles). Flammifer

Watch Tower versus Watchtower

The article states: "Those remaining supportive, however, eventually adopted the new name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, and changed the name of the Society from Watch Tower to Watchtower." From looking at the bottom of watchtower.org, it seems that the New York corporation is Watchtower, while the Pennsylvania one is Watch Tower. Assuming that the article is actually talking about the New York one, that should be clarified.Tommstein 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)