Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Request for Comment: Herbert W. Armstrong

This is a dispute at base about whether referenced negative facts can be included in a biography of a noted religious leader.

Is the RFC still active? It is not clear exactly what material is in question; what is it source; what are the arguments for inclusion or exclusion. Can a concise summary be provided if the opinions of other editors are still sought? VisitorTalk 07:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I was brought in by User:Lisasmall as an extra pair of eyes on the article, per my listing on WP:ASSIST. When I got here, I found that referenced material was being deleted as superfluous by User:Jebbrady and his various (2?) non-logged-in IPs. He feels that WP has an anti-religious bias, and is battling to keep out changes he regards as problematic, such as Armstrong's marriage (after his wife's death) to a divorcee with a living ex-husband, despite having taught for decades that remarriage in this case was unacceptable.[1] I would like to see a wider selection of references, and a more balanced presentation of the subject.--SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning superfluous deletion: These were references to no less than three additions referring to the life and activities of Dugger and Dodd, Church of God ministers which did not connect with Armstrongs life. Jebbrady 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

A page can have some brisk debate, but we're all adults here. I am the one referred to in the above comments. I am a new user.

I can only ask that we not reward inappropriate characterizations of another editors actions, attitude, and behavior by not investigating their claim thoroughly. please note that I put in 55 citations to the article over the past three weeks, among other contributions, and have made a proposal for dealing with 'controversy", and put up severl thought prvoking posts dealing witht he background of the controversy and Armstrongs life. Yet somehow no positive contributions are mentioned above.

It's hard to think that they are not a personal attack, and that the words were intended to prejudice the third parties invited by this posting against me. I realize we need to give the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, it would stretch the limits of common sense. You'll notice these accusations are not brought on by any disrespectful behavior I've taken toward Sarek.

For those who would like to participate in this discussion, please be ready to commit to studying these accusations thoroughly; he has attempted to "re-facor" the dialog between him and I by summarizing it in his words against my stated wishes, and was prevented by Edjohnson as per Wikipedia policy. So the record still speaks thankfully.

The olive branch I extended to Sarek is on his page ("Great First Two Weeks,Rough 48 Hours"[2])--this was done before I saw this accusation, and I politely asked him to remove the above passage.

I'll not dignify the accusations further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebbrady (talk • contribs)

• In answer to Sarek's RfC, I agree that properly-sourced criticism should be included in the article. Maybe Sarek could start a draft of a Criticism section as a user subpage. I know that Jeb objects to the Time article, and it is possible that Armstrong may have suffered from some kind of 'defamation' campaign. But if any of that can be sourced, we can talk about the nature of that campaign in the criticism section itself. Some things about Armstrong's health and later marriage have also been mentioned. If any actual sources can be found to show that he received medical treatment, or actually got married, I believe that those facts can be included in the main body of the article and don't need to be separated under 'criticism.'

The amount and type of criticism provided in Sarek's Isitso reference would be OK in my view, but a TON of references would be needed to substantiate what that site included. Clearly the Isitso site itself is not a reliable source. EdJohnston 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I know next to nothing about Armstrong, I wouldn't be the right one to come up with the draft section. Maybe Lisasmall or RelHistBuff could come up with it? And besides the last of citations, why would the Field Guide site be unreliable? Would the book itself be a WP:RS, if someone looked it up and quoted it directly?--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a printed book, then it could arguably be a reference. However if the book is like the web site, it doesn't give any further sources for the negative things it says about Armstrong, so some people might question that. It would lose out by comparison if it was weighed against other books that DID provide references, if there are any suitable. Note that its capsule biography of Armstrong is shorter than our own. EdJohnston 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

8-10 References to third party book removed

IP, there was one complaint that there are too many references to Armstrong's autobiography.I noticed that you've removed 8-10 references to this third party monograph:

Boston, Stephen W. Ph.D. (2002). The Essential Teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. Writers Club Press, Appendix, ISBN 978-0595211463.

This book was supporting passages all over the article, verifying several time line facts of later history. If you please would, explain why you did this.

Edjohnson, please comment on his explanation. Also, Ed, please comment on the appropriateness of someone who added no references taking out the references others labored to put in without discussion or giving any justification except to express suspicion that someone was try to load the page and snow people into thinking there were more sources than there were. IP will not deny that. That's ironic for him to say, because now the Third party mentioned above has only two citations, hardly noticeable, creating the appearance that the autobiography was primarily used in greater proportion than it was. Preekout rebuked IP for this; Sarek had no comment on that. Jebbrady 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbady

References not removed

Jeb, those references are still there. Take a look at this static copy of the article,[3] specifically references #30 and #31, the Boston book. See the letters next to them? Those letters indicate multiple uses of the same reference. Click on one of them and it will take you to that use of the reference. You'll notice that there are two uses (a and b) of page 237. There are 6 uses (a, b, c, d, e, and f) of page 238. Hell, these particular ones didn't even cause the loss of superfluous section and paragraph directions. You can see I did a similar thing with references #3, 8, 11, 28 and 37. Where the reference was to a different page, webpage or chapter, I didn't consolidate. You can see that in #4 thru 9, and #35, 37, and 41-43. This is all laid out in the style guide at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once. In other words, no references were ever removed by me. If this misunderstanding of "consolidation" is the basis for your complaints, well, I think you just lost the crux of your argument. 24.6.65.83 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. Again, I'm new to wikipedia . There's no need to snipe with the closing salutation--this is not the first time, it's a daily occurrence. There is a policy about politeness and patience with newcomers.

Speaking of being new versus having experience at wikipedia, it's obvious you know your way around technical formatting and policy. Why have you not acted on other editors requests to get a Wikipedia account and user name? To be honest, that ignoring of requests (Preekout), coupled with the incongruousness between your experience and your lack of a user name makes me uncomfortable going forward in dealing with you. I understand now that having a bad attitude, lack of constructive ideas about how to reach objective POV, concialiatory gestures, sniping, and luekwarmth to real consensus and trust building is not part of the Wikipedia definition of "Bad Faith", so I don't suggest it. P.S. Grabbing a throw awy user name will not build trust--it's kind of a hard thing to repair don't you think. I'm always willing, but the losing snipes would be a good place to start. Cordiality is pretty easy stuff to maintain.69.115.162.235 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, I could turn that around and ask why you continue to ignore admin instructions to sign in when you edit and claim to be new after 10 months of editing, but quite frankly, this back-and-forth is beyond tired. Registering an account is not required and I choose not to. Why don't we focus on the article? It's been gridlocked for days. Would you care to comment further on the consolidation of the references? Since it appears that the crux of your objections is invalid, I want to resume cleaning them up. For instance, I've noticed that many of the remaining autobiography entries are pointing to the wrong webpage (chapt. 1 instead of the listed chapt.) and would like to correct that, but I want assurances that you now understand that references are not being destroyed. I'd rather not have my efforts reverted because you don't understand what is being done and revert first instead of discussing it. 24.6.65.83 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia FAQ says that he doesn't have to do it, so stop asking, ok? "You do not have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia — just about anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in, and many long-time contributors do not log in."--SarekOfVulcan 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, again, an obtuse reply--I really hate to say it. I did not ask IP but once. Doesn't take much to get a scathing rebuke replete with reference to a policy from you (If only you would adhere to the spirit of the policies). Tell Preekout to stop asking that. I understand the policy. Your welcome to try to turn the tables on me and pin it on me. It's about trust and honoring reasonable requests. Yes, by the letter of the law he or she does not HAVE to. Your a thousand percent right.

You know, the larger problem is that you can't grasp that policies exist to help us, not cause division. They were not intended to be cited incessantly by third parties who've taken on a consistently contentious tone, and who attempt to cite policy in every context imaginable in an attempt to get the best of people in an exchange. They were not meant to have third parties use the letter of the law to skirt the spirit. You did that in the re-factoring controversy, and continue to against my request to stop. If your pleased and proud of the lagacy you're leaving on this page, than you need to take a few deep breaths, step back, and hoenstly examine your attitude, actions, and comments.

Second, I didn't address you with the question, so please politely refrain from comment in such cases, It doesn't look good, especially when you and IP were tag teaming in a revert battle to avoid doing three consecutive reverts, thus skirting the spirit of the rule, knowing I was outnumbered. That was done to uphold an action you took against policy. So don't please don't comment when I address someone else. Are you going to cite a policy on that? What do you have to say now. You can have the last word. I'm done. Don;t expect a reply. Jebbrady 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Thanks for allowing me to show what I really think, and yet demonstrate that I'm trying to be mature and diplomatic! Maybee you think too much! Just be simple, and let's stop the madness though, really. 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Getting back to the article, I'm going to take Jeb's silence on the reference question to be the assurance I requested and start working on them again. Now that I've explained the process, I hope that people will bring any questions here rather than just revert. 24.6.65.83 07:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What reference question? 08:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I only just asked now, for the first time Sarek. No big deal. As I said, Preekout asked--it probably made him uncomfortable too. I will not ask again. It's a dead subject. But can I get you to think about the idea that policies exist to help Wikipedia, as a substitute for the spirit of cooperation--an aid to cooperation in the absence of the attitude of cooperation--and to give guidelines for standards to be applied with judgment and common sense, as the polcies cannot spell out every situation and context. They have no other purpose that I can discern, nor should they. P.S. Jebbrady 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

You said I should focus on the article. I've been waiting for you to say that. We can move forward. Put a thoughtful posting in the controversy section, and then, if you would, go ahead and respond to the posting I originally made to Sarek below: I would like to invite you to list some common ground you have with me on content. Thanks. P.S. I'm been signing my edits--you need not bring that up again--you can cut me some slack. Jebbrady 09:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

• points upward to the straw poll and related discussion*--SarekOfVulcan 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the tag-team accusation from here, Jeb: it something I definitely was not doing.--SarekOfVulcan 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my reply was based on his original post and the thrust of that reply changes if he is allowed to alter his post; I've restored it with strike-through so the record is accurate. Jeb, You don't get to dictate what I posts or where so just stop it right now. I don't dance to your tune. I am going to focus on the article, but because of your continued misinterpretations of people's comments, your editing from both your account Special:Contributions/Jebbrady and the IP address Special:Contributions/69.115.162.235 and your obvious COI, I no longer assume good faith from you on WCG articles. If you continue to push your agenda of whitewashing Armstrong's article and vilifying his successors, I will file a Request for Comment about your behaviour. 24.6.65.83 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Building Exercise

Sarek,

To create some good dialog going forward and hopefully to move toward some consensus, I have an exercise in mind: If you please would, in bullet points, list some things you agree with me on, and some parts of the current article you think are interesting to readers and informative. As far as my ideas and thoughts, you have a lot to choose from, as I've (longwindedly) commented widely on many aspects of the article, sources, ideas for moving forward, the Time quotes that started the entire controversy, the POV of last September's article, and on aspects of Armstrong's life and how they are treated. Thanks. Jebbrady 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebrady

1)

2)

3)

Etc

Jeb, a lot of what's there is interesting: that's not the issue. The issue is that you have systematically removed other information that is also interesting, but that does not support your POV on the article. For example, the Time citations were perfectly valid, but you decided that because you felt they were misleading, they could not be included in the article, where people could evaluate the different citations and make up their own minds. There are some web sites that have been declared by the Arbcom to not be reliable sources: Time, emphatically, is not one of them.--SarekOfVulcan 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications

Sarek says in this edit summary that it may not be necessary to indicate the source of the statement in the text. I feel that because the claim extends beyond the biographical and into the effects of Armstrong on the larger world, the fact that it's relying on a Primary Source should be noted in the body of the article. If this were a secondary source I would feel differently, but this seems to fall under "exceptional claims" and I'm not comfortable relying solely on first-hand accounts without noting that. Unless I've missed it, the article has no secondary sources that indicate the Foundation even existed. 24.6.65.83 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "Ambassador International Cultural Foundation" gets 1300 hits, so the foundation seems to be real, and Google finds various good works it is said to be doing. What aspect of this are you questioning? EdJohnston 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reliance on a Primary Source for the information. If there are good secondary sources, it would be preferable if they were used instead of or in addition to the Rader one. 24.6.65.83 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope you noticed that a large number of google hits are WCG-associated sites, making those primary sources as well. 24.6.65.83 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever written a book, Jebbrady?

I've just spent quite a while reading up on a very in depth discussion about a man that I don't really agree with, but still find his strength of conviction, even in the face of great adversity and slander, intriguing. You really have put a lot of your time and effort into this subject, and your passion is applaudable. I was wondering though, have you ever written a book, or a short story? Have you ever thought in the point of view of the antagonist? You have this subject down pat, both good side and bad. However, by hiding the bad, you give it power and draw. When you leave the "bad guy" alone, you can do almost anything you want with them when you need them, and have the potential to make a very big impact on the reader. Sauramon is a perfect example, as is the story The Casque of Amontillado. However, if he is kept exposed to the reader the whole time, his power ebbs away like a snowbank in the sun, weakened by overexposure. Leave him in the dark, and he becomes an iceberg, ready to sink the strongest of ships.

This analogy is applicable to almost all writing, of any sort. In this case, you don't have a villain, you have a dark, misleading side to a story. This side, when discovered by a reader of this article, will hold extra strength over the reader, make a deeper impression then the side that you have shown them. It's novelty makes it interesting.

If you tell both sides of the story at the same time, both sides have equal playing fields, and the the side showing the more courageous individual is automatically highlighted. Certainly, there are those who thrive on dissent who will choose the wrong side, but they would most likely have done so anyway, despite any effort on your part. In summary, if you hide one side of a story, it will never let the reader stop wondering about it. Compare it to the just side of the story side by side, and the villains are only suitable for a children's story.

May your collaboration continue on the fruitful path it has taken, as the greatest feats are never accomplished alone. Surrogate Spook 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Began restoring some factual details to the article

From this discussion at WP:WQA, running from 21 July to 12 August, I have assumed there is consensus to restore factual details to this article that have been taken out since April. I began this effort and put quite a few back, including Armstrong's second marriage, his wife's middle name, the link to British Israelism, the Hitler comments, etc. Now I'm up to mid-July and I notice some hints of scandalous stuff, not so far backed up by rock-solid sources. I've seen enough to believe that the opinions expressed in the Time article could be valid. Lisa Small found an Amazon reader review that asserted Armstrong's access to world leaders was purchased through financial donations. This source (Amazon review) probably doesn't qualify, but the fact that this is possible makes me more eager than ever to remove the 'meetings with world leaders' section.

In the time available we may not be able to find good sourcing even for true negative information, but we may find that there isn't time to do all the research needed. The books aren't so easy to find in libraries; I've had some limited success. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Amazon review qualifies as a self-published source, and hence not reliable. As I mentioned in the edit summary, I removed the middle name because the source of the name for the Garner Ted article contradicts itself: the census records transcribed at the bottom use "E", while the top of the page uses "Isabelle".

The Hitler quote doesn't seem to chronologically belong where it is: is there another place where those could go, short of a Controversies section?--SarekOfVulcan 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EdJ moved Jeb's comment here. Jeb is responding to User:EdJohnston's comment above.You are a very intelligent person and I'm trying to appeal to both that and your sense of fairness. Your anxiousness to remove that seems out of proportion to your argument and evidence for doing it.

When you say he purchased access, what does that mean? I can say that you purchased access to your law degree through the enormous tuition of law school, and therefore it's invalid, but that would be absurd (i.e you can level that against anyone). Giving to the poor within these countries is "purchasing" access? Of course, even if it could be proved he did it on purpose to gain access, we wouldn't be presenting the full picture on his life to remove that fascinating section, would we? Note also that his ultimate goal was to preach the gospel before many nations and leaders (Rev. 10:11). Also, what about the award that only he and Black Jack Pershing, Clemenceau, and Marshall Foche received for contributing to world peace? That was purchased from a wealthy king? How much money did he really give these leaders countries, compared to their tax revenue?

You say you found support for the Time quote: Well, we do need to see it. Have you read the posting that gives five reasons why the Time "obit" writer insinuating that H.W. Armstrong abused the members financially is baseless? Each point standing alone was sufficient. Again, the man was not Jim Jones, and if an obituary writer for Time with little or no editorial oversite of the couple dozen word he gave Mr. Armstrong can't do his homework, then we have to because Wikipedia is better than Time, and if we don't then it leaves egg on Wikipeia's face. You'll see soon that the characterization of the other issues broached by Time were as far off base as the issue of tithes and offerings. So we'll be talking more about that.

Lastly, burden of proof is with the one wishing to add or delete and, not that it will be necessary, but I honestly can't think of any Wikipedia policy that will support any power move to remove that section, including the policy against acting in concert with other editors in a revert war. I'm not saying anyone plans to do that, but there was such behavior with other editors over the recent refactoring (rewording) of my own postings--I've not filed a report on it. That still hasn't been resolved according the the spirit of the policy however, as another editor has pointed out (That editor seems to not be much involved lately).

I've yet to get you to concede on any points. unfortunately, I've been wrong about an issue and had to concede (I had a somewhat tangential passage). Anyway, I think there will be cool headed discussion prevailing on this page going forward. Enjoy.

Jebbrady 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The TIME quotes

Here for your study are the controversial quotes from Time Magazine. These were added to the article by User:Lisasmall on 20 July and later removed on 21 July by User:Jebbrady. We should discuss them further.

When I first starting looking at the article, these comments sounded unduly negative and I wondered if they were well-researched. After reading other material, I can believe that they are fair. Though we *could* do deeper research to validate these comments, Wikipedia policy allows us to accept Time Magazine as a valid secondary source.

Those who are unhappy with the Time assertions might look for sources that argue against them. For example, hypothetically, perhaps

• It might *not* be true that Armstrong changed church laws against divorce one year before his own marriage to Ramona?
• Perhaps Armstrong himself did *not* use medical care?
• Perhaps his adherents were *not* fanatically loyal?

These are just some examples of research that might be done by those who don't believe that the Time quotes fairly describe the situation. If anything can be found that contradicts Time's assertions, if it is well sourced, we could include it.

• TIME Magazine (May 10, 1982)

SEEKING DIVORCE. Herbert Armstrong, 89, autocratic founder of the Worldwide Church of God (membership: 68,000 tithing believers); and Ramona Armstrong, 44, his second wife; after five years; in Tucson, Ariz. They were married one year after Armstrong changed church laws against divorce and remarriage.

• TIME Magazine (June 21, 2005. Must be commemorating his death on 16 January, 1986)

DIED. Herbert W. Armstrong, 93, autocratic founder-leader of the 75,000-member Worldwide Church of God; in Pasadena, Calif. Forsaking an advertising career in 1934 to become a radio preacher and self-proclaimed "Chosen Apostle" of God, Armstrong taught that Christians should deny the Trinity, shun medical care (though he used it as his own health deteriorated) and that remarried members should divorce their second spouses and rejoin their first (though he repealed that dictum in 1976 and a year later married a divorcée). Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church.

EdJohnston 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. What concerns me is how does one bring into the narrative all five refutations to the Time "bilking the membership including the poor" insinuation, which I presented here about four weeks ago? They are not easy to explain briefly, yet are convincing. Even in a section devoted to exploring controversy, it would be unwieldy.

Counterbalance: How would it look?

But, Edjohnson, if you would please, go ahead and show how those five points would look in an example passage, by somehow synthesizing them if you can, and then please present it to us here--in a way that it would read in the article of course. Of course if we had to put that counter balance in, then it defeats the purpose of having that part of the Time quote in--why include it if the premise and import of it looks silly via the counterbalancing? And if we think we just have to have the tithe insinuation, then won't that tend to pervert a third party's wording of the counterbalancing statement, tending to force a third party to want to suggest a less powerful refutation, to make it us look less silly of us for having included the insinuation? All to justify a strong willed editor's desire to have it? If the wording of the counterbalance doesn't blow apart the insinuation to the degree my five points did, I won't support it under any circumstances--it's a redline issue. I am of course willing to take a look at what you come up with.

Counter sources coming

As for the other issue, counter evidence is forthcoming. Two issues: 1) Time limits on providing them should be no less than i month--anything less would be artificial considering the current article has stood virtually unchanged and unchallenged for 10 months (One editor,& Wilburwebber doesn't count). Most importantly it would be unfair, I would argue, considering I was directed to add citations, and labored alone for three weeks to provide the article with them--it was a lot of work. 2) As I said, evidence and counter evidence make passages unwieldy. What is the solution? I had suggested a section on controversy

Sources used by third parties

In the meantime, I'll assert that the burden of evidence is with the editors who want the Time quote, and if they have present evidence to corroborate it, I have not seen it. When I say that, I mean third party publications that say where they got their information, so we can trace it, and see if it came from an internal, unnamed source, or from accusations thrown out in court; their is also a history of hearsay accusations, but Time, the LA Times etc are not the first candidates to present that side of it, being know for a secular angle and an anti-Christian bias--look at Bernard Goldberg's exposé work.

If we let third parties cite hearsay and assert opinions as facts because policy says it's OK, then Wikiepdia has a blind spot, and we need to overcome that with a little discretion and due diligence.

More third party's

For now I would like other third party comments concerning that quote, especially in light of the Time insinuation that Armstrong was taking advantage of the members financially, including "many of whom were poor".

Sensationalism, the poor, and Third Tithe not mentioned

On a final note, doesn't the sensationalism in that "many of whom were poor" tack-on leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth? Edjohnson? I somehow forgot to mention that the poor and widows in the church automatically received assistance through the Third tithes, which were collected for that purpose both in ancient Israel and the Church. I guess that's a sixth point that make the Time assertion look silly. Again, the policy states that exceptional claims much have exceptional sources--and a Time obit writer with no oversite who was ignorant of any of Armstrong's accomplishments and scribbled a couple dozen words just isn't going to look "exceptional" to many. That issue is going to be pressed home.

Jebbrady 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to correct the writer for Time. If you disagree with specific parts of the Time statements, find sources for your side of the argument. It is very time-consuming to find sources; Lisa found the Time references, and we are entitled to use them. EdJohnston 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my impression was that the editor found the Time quote in a matter of minutes, and took no time to provided balancing references, but left that time consuming task to people like me who are not hostile to H.W. Armstrong. Since then, I was tied up with being asked to provide sources for the article we have now, and came up with 10 sources and 55 references--you are of course right that it is time consuming. If an editor wants the quote in, why should others have to do their legwork to balance it out? That's their responsibility. Of course I speak somewhat in jest to make a point, but I do plan to provide material.

Edjohnson, I'd like to formally request that you comment on two policies: the burden of proof resting with additions and the "exceptional claims/exceptional sources rule. We need your suggestions to align with those rules moving forward, and I would feel better if that issue is finally addressed openly, and have you discuss how your suggestions do align with them. In the meantime, I'll try to do some legwork, unfortunately I don't live in Pasadena and the newspaper there, which was respectful to Armstrong as far as I know, does not have online archives. Jebbrady 02:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

anything less would be artificial considering the current article has stood virtually unchanged and unchallenged for 10 months (One editor,& Wilburwebber doesn't count).

Ok, all in favor of letting one SPA decide whose edits do and don't "count"?--SarekOfVulcan 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Time limits on providing them should be no less than i month--anything less would be artificial considering the current article has stood virtually unchanged and unchallenged for 10 months

As you point out, you've already had 10 months. If you can't come up with some quick cites by now, are you going to be able to?--SarekOfVulcan 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has suggested there is consensus on this page concerning several topics that I have either not been asked to weigh in on, or have made my opposing position known. Beside pointing out good faith etc, and that it is the strength of arguments and proof and not a majority of votes that will carry the day, I must say that if I'm forced to revert after not being consulted or addressed, and anyone acts in concert to undo the revert, I know how to proceed in that eventuality. I would never say that if I wasn't truly concerned, and if it hadn't already happened once. But going forward in the discussions, I will assume that I was not brushed aside in this case, but rather that it was an oversite.Jebbrady 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Time references shouldn't be immediately restored to the article. Since they are valid secondary sources in their own right, there is no need to find any additional sources to justify them. I invite other editors to comment on my plan to restore them to the reference list. EdJohnston 02:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A friendly point, nowhere in the policy does it state in the burden of proof policy that a majority vote overrides this burden.

Three questions: 1) What is the rush? This is getting unnecessarily hasty, and resolution guidelines suggest stepping back for a time when things get heated 2) Please address my request to show what the counterbalancing would look like for the "financially abusing the poor members with Tithes" quote from Time. My six points are in the new posting section below. How will counterbalances to the Time quote be fit into the narrative? Considering you said the article already rambles, isn't a section on controversy the place where it can be addressed?

3)Edjohnson, I'm formally requesting that you comment on one other policy: the "exceptional claims/exceptional sources" rule. Your suggestions need to align with that and also with the burden of proof rule moving forward, and I would feel better if that issue is finally addressed openly, and have you discuss how your suggestions do align with them.

In the meantime, I'll try to do some legwork, unfortunately I don't live in Pasadena and the newspaper there, which was respectful to Armstrong as far as I know, does not have online archives.

Jebbrady 03:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether to restore two items to the reference list, the two Time citations that you removed on 21 July. I didn't mention adding any actual text to the article; that is a question for another day. Since there will be no claims added to the article, there is no need to consider whether claims are exceptional. I hope that other editors, besides the two of us, will give their opinions on this. EdJohnston 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh. I see. I thought something seemed strange. Nighty night everyone Jebbrady 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, restore the Time references, but please show us a draft here first. After reviewing Jeb's five counterpoints all I see is original research. 24.6.65.83 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change

An editor has suggested there is consensus on this page concerning several topics that I have either not been asked to weigh in on, or have made my opposing position known.

Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one.

A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

--SarekOfVulcan 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Details

It is important to give a truthful history of Armstrong's life. That requires including the significant bad parts as well as the good. The authors of the Bible didn't whitewash King David's life, or Abraham's. Armstrong's followers should not try to whitewash his life on Wikipedia.

Here are some important missing details that are verifiable:

• Armstrong preached against divorce and remarriage for most of his ministry, until he decided to marry his private airline stewardess who was a divorcee. A few years later when he was 91 he filed for a divorce from his second wife. The divorce was contested and went through a number of hearings prior to reaching a $1.6 million settlement to his ex-wife.
• Garner Ted Armstrong admitted to being a serial adulterer who admitted to having had sex with over 200 women while he was an officer of the World Church of God. After being removed from office for one year, Garner Ted was restored by his father to his previous position.

Sources of this information include internal publications of the WCG as well as the Ambassador Report, a magazine published in 72 issues from 1976 to 1999 by John Trechak who had left the WCG in 1976. Back issues of the Ambassador Report containing these details and many more can be found here: [4] Cadwallader 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wordyness

157K in 15 days? *shivers*--SarekOfVulcan 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the strangest talk page I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Most of you make your points in 3,000 words when you only needed 20 and wear your biases on your sleeve. This is a deceased man's biography, not a place to debate WCG doctrine or completely unverifiable scandals.66.210.182.3 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)User:Stomp

I found Cadwallader's posting about mainstream vs. cult very educational, but I think it should be an essay in his user space. Then he could post a link to it here. (Hint, there is still time to do this!). The discussion of possible scandals about HWA does belong here, but it would be a lot of work to verify this stuff up to our usual standards, and meanwhile, the article is still heavily tagged. I would rather work on the fixes needed to remove those tags and not do scandal-oriented research, unless it can be shown to be fundamental to the story of HWA. EdJohnston 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Cult section (that I was the author of) at the reasonable request of EdJohnston.

I see the point about the scandal issue, but it is a pretty important issue. There is enough smoke to see there was a fire there, but the primary sources evidently never made any documentable statements. You're right. I'll cut the incest part, but the remarriage and divorce are important because thcaused a major leadership crisis in the WCG at the time and are well documented.

Cadwallader 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that, per Cadwallader's August 17 note immediately above, the conflict about the marriages which began at least as far back as July 21 is still not resolved. I agree with Cadwallader about the remarriage and divorce being highly relevant to this biographical article. Complete family information belongs in biographies. The divorce is public record, had a major impact on the subject's public life, and has been referenced in several acceptable sources. There should not be dispute about including it. The incest question is more sensitive and, with an eye on the wordyness problem, I'd rather address it after the arbitration on this article is over. -- Lisasmall | Talk 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough evidence to bring it up in the article. It's essentially a single-source accusation: I don't think I've seen any reports that don't link back to the book, and it doesn't seem that anyone who has first-hand knowledge of the events has confirmed them publically. Garner Ted could, but he's refused to comment on the issue. --SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean you hesitate about the incest allegation, right? I'd rather discuss that later. But you're okay with putting in marriage and divorce data right now? -- Lisasmall | Talk 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It's undisputed biographical material.--SarekOfVulcan 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would second that. Let's get the basic biographical info in there. The incest allegation is probably the sorest spot for Armstrong advocates and critics alike (even Raising the Ruins sidestepped it big-time!) and I don't suggest going down that road until the article is better shored up. - jere71.203.211.107 00:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitor and the Same Old POV

"It was during this period that Armstrong, no doubt spurred by a rapidly developing geopolitical world, began to reveal a tendency toward sensationalism that would be the source of controversy for supporters and critics alike from that point until his death. Critics point to numerous statements in his early writings that proved to be inaccurate."

The second sentence of course is the culprit. “Sensationalism”, mentioned in the first sentence, is merely a style; we are led to believe the second sentence will be directly related, but accuracy in predictions is an issue of substance (performance) not style—either he was right or wrong regardless of style. This is easier to see than oto explain, I hope people can see it.

It almost looks like someone was so eager to cram the second sentence in any way they could, they couldn’t be bothered with stopping first to see if it was apropos of the context. This is a habit of POV editors going back to the version that I cleaned up back in October: Cram any bit of information one can into a passage apropos of nothing in the context, and make it difficult for any other editor to come in and provide counterbalancing background on the negative sounding innuendo.

The background counterbalance is of course that Armstrong famously predicted many things, including that Nazism would go underground, and that it would have an influence in the forming of the “United States of Europe”[[5]].

This is the reason that I lobbied for the section on controversy.

Jebbrady 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with these two sentences also. The two examples that follow are pure original research. Uncited critics say something, but there's no reference to support the allegation or identify those critics. Instead, we are provided with two examples that attempt to prove the point. That's original research, folks. The examples should only be included if they are part of what "the critics" have been shown to say. I've removed the obvious speculation as to motive ("no doubt spurred by a rapidly developing geopolitical world") and am open to suggestions on how to correct the rest. If it can't be corrected, it should be removed. 24.6.65.83 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If Armstrong taught that a focus on Jesus's message had been replaced with a focus on Jesus the person...

then what's the problem with having negative information in the article? The message is what's important...--SarekOfVulcan 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes

To further the cleanup of the references section, I'd like to follow up on an idea that Sarek mentioned, as outlined at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes". It's a much cleaner looking presentation that shows at a glance the sum total of the references while preserving individual citations. What exists there now is, IMHO, bulky and unwieldy. 24.6.65.83 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I hadn't seen this post before, or I would have credited you when I did the combinations today.--SarekOfVulcan 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra line breaks

Folks, sorry about breaking the paragraphs: I pasted the text into an external editor, and obviously wasn't paying careful enough attention when I did it.--SarekOfVulcan 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a problem inherent with external editors; every time I've tried it the same thing happens. 24.6.65.83 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(minus the prophetic flavor)

Jeb, I can't figure out what this means: is it British Israelism, Anglo-Israelism, or Armstrong's beliefs that lack a "prophetic flavor"? If you could clarify this, I might want to suggest a different wording. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to speak for Jeb, but I would suggest he means the application of it. British-Israelism, or just plain speculation about the "lost tribes of Israel" has not always been linked with eschatology. Herbert Armstrong was not the first to apply an "-Israelism" to eschatology, but his promotion of his particular view is certainly peculiar as opposed to some of the other writings on the topic. - jere 71.203.211.107 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC

For any interested parties, there's a conduct RFC open on Jebbrady's actions on this and other articles over here. --SarekOfVulcan 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Beginnings of Ministry edit

Hi! I shortened the "encounters Church of God (Seventh Day)" and "Beginnings of ministry" sections a little bit - the old Dugger/Dodd "church history" hypothesis is pretty much contradicted by material on every group concerned on Wikipedia, and was rather rambling anyway - and seemed irrelevant biographically. Also cut down some of the wordiness about Armstrong's early studies, combining a few paragraphs. Hope that's okay... just trying to help. -- jere 71.203.211.107 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

At first it looked like a vandal edit to me, but after reviewing what you removed, I think it's well gone. We might be able to bring back some more of the evolution material without hurting the article, though.--SarekOfVulcan 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

By and large, I agree with the removal of the history of the Waldensians. Much of it seemed to be providing evidence that Armstrong's beliefs were correct (or at least well-researched) rather than strictly biographical information. On the other hand, I just spent a lot of time buffing up and verifying those references! ;) But seriously, the claim that the CoG (7th Day) believed these things was not sourced, only that Dugger, Dodd and Armstrong did. Pairadox 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (formerly various 24.xx IPs)

Yes, that had been a concern of mine as well - I simply have never seen anything to indicate that COG7 ever bought into the Dugger/Dodd as a doctrinal concept. The book itself has been largely discredited for years, C.F. Randolph (The Sabbath Recorder, Vol 133, No 26, p 447) described it as "by ignorant hands, unskilled in historical research and interpretation". Plus it simply just doesn't square with what info we now have on the Waldensians, Lollards, etc. Maybe I'm going on the wrong tack here, but it seems to me that this article should be largely biographical, not examining the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. We can do that on the "Armstrongism" and "Worldwide Church of God" pages. :) - jere71.203.211.107 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As the "Armstrong's wife encounters Church of God (Seventh Day)" section is short, I propose merging it with the "Beginnings of ministry" section using the title of the latter. The latter section has info on Loma as well so it seems the two sections should go together. --RelHistBuff 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--SarekOfVulcan 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, had thought of same thing. - jere71.203.211.107 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a brief edit to the section regarding 1975 In Prophecy. It read rather defensively - the book does claim "the beginning of the Great Tribulation" will occur "probably between 1965 and 1972!" While I think that Armstrongist "prophetic time frames" might bear mention, 1975 In Prophecy might not be the best example to use. I really want to rewrite the "New Ministerial Direction" section as well, as it seems a tad redundant and rests on nothing more than the Autobiography, but I haven't found a good way to to do so yet. - jere71.203.211.107 05:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit is definitely an improvement! Concerning "Ministerial controversy and new direction" section, the first paragraph should probably be merged with the last paragraph of the previous section, "Beginnings of ministry". The second paragraph ("In 1933...") does not really say anything notable and could be deleted. In fact, the cited source does not even support the paragraph; even more reason to delete it. --RelHistBuff 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the whole "Ministerial controversy and new direction" section has been rendered pointless. The event described is not verifiable and only exists, to my knowledge, in Armstrong's autobiography. More to the point, I don't see how it does anything but breaks the flow of the article. The man left COG7 and started his own group with followers he built from his radio ministry - does a petty quibble with other ministers (that ultimately, he separated from) really bear citing? jere71.203.211.107 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section about his time with COG7 I think could be greatly shortened. (The part from 'Ultimately' through 'Sardis era'). But I'd be in favor of keeping the fact that he had a dispute with them over doctrine, because it motivates his creation of a new ministry. If there is no third-party reference for those events, we could describe it as being his own account of what happened. EdJohnston 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, we could remove everything from 'Ultimately...' all through the end of "Ministerial controversy" and probably come up with a much more succinct bridge for the gap. Try this version... jere71.203.211.107 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a broken link. This is caused when the shortcut empty named tag is used (e.g., <ref name="xxx" />). The complete named ref element was deleted in your edit making all the shortcut elements disappear. To avoid this kind of problem, I never use shortcuts and give the full reference even when they are named. But getting back to the point, looking at chapter 30 of the autobiography, is there any indication that he was successful in getting small congregations before starting his radio broadcasts? And the subject of his first radio broadcast was on a different subject (promises to Abraham). The cite does not support statements and in any case they are not notable. Does anyone mind if I drop the last two sentences of the section? --RelHistBuff 07:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

It might be good to remove the 4 items of doctrines/beliefs in the lead section. There is a link to Armstrongism which should be sufficient. This would conform to the manual of style which states that the lead section should be a concise overview of the article (on the man, not the doctrines). Thoughts? --RelHistBuff 10:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to go either way on that point; I think the current list is brief and explanatory enough to warrant inclusion and provides a nice background. Believe me, in the hands of some folks it would be much longer and probably dominate the entire article, so I like it the way it is! On the other hand, I do see what you're driving at. Perhaps it could be condensed further and used as a reference to Armstrongism. - jere71.203.211.107 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long as it stands. After all, the beliefs that led him to found his own church are rather relevant. What would be nice, though, is an independent citation saying that these are the four core beliefs.--SarekOfVulcan 12:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that there will be a long discussion between various splinter groups on what actually determines the core beliefs! So in that regard, I think it will be difficult to find a good citation. In terms of style, I would favour prose rather than a list and perhaps it should be left ambiguous about whether they are "core beliefs" or not. I first changed "The Church's" to "his". I propose the following:

• As head of the California-based church which he founded circa 1933, Armstrong was a controversial figure. His unique doctrines and theological teachings, sometimes referred to by critics as Armstrongism, included the interpretation of biblical prophecy through the knowledge that the British and American peoples were descended from the lost ten tribes of ancient Israel and the requirement of observing Mosaic Law including the laws concerning the Sabbath, dietary prohibitions, and the Levitical "Holy Days".

I dropped the first two items because they are not really unique to Armstrong's theology. Some Restorationist churches like the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the second item. The fourth item is reduced to remove the "prerequisite" clause and the "deviation" clause to make it less apologetic/polemic. Feel free to add your ideas. --RelHistBuff 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd use "through the belief", instead of knowledge, and either removing the quotes from "Holy Days" or extending them to include "Levitical".--SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd find the quoted "Holy Days" appropriate - it was WCG's term for the subject, I don't think any other Christian group refers to them in quite that manner. - jere71.203.211.107 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done as suggested. I also noticed by looking into the raw wiki text that a lot of text was not being shown due to missing close ref (</ref>) tags. I will see if I can recover them. --RelHistBuff 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Armstrong's grave available, but does it need one?

I found this photo set recently: http://www.flickr.com/photos/preekout/sets/72157594336885531/

I assume that's the same Preekout who's edited here...--SarekOfVulcan 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also a photo available here: http://www.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2007/49/8359_117190382586.jpg But does anyone really want a picture of his grave to be the only shot other than the main one? There are surely more interesting things to document.Wikiwikiwaki 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Any shots available of Armstrong in his radio studio, or speaking in front of an audience? EdJohnston 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did find a picture of HWA at the microphone on the WCG website and emailed them a while ago, but didn't hear anything back yet.--SarekOfVulcan 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the grave photos are quite nice; it's an attractive headstone with one of his core beliefs engraved on it. Maybe suitable as an external link? That way, a reader can see Preekout's whole set, including the other family members. I tried for a headshot photo back in July, but like Sarek, haven't heard back from the people who published it. Two pics, a radio studio while young and a late-in-life pulpit shot, would be nice. A family group photo would be relevant, since his (first) wife and his son played so much of a role in his ministry. And as the second wife worked in the church too, if a photo of him with her is all that's available, it would do. I'm not suggesting all four would fit; I'm just saying what I think would be appropriate given that we don't have any on hand at the moment. I think the gravestone, in the absence of any other image, is a little macabre for inclusion in the text unless we really get desperate. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I had considered just having the number of kids, but Garner Ted does have his own article, so I put them all in. --SarekOfVulcan 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an easy way to reduce 4 lines to 1. The box looked unnaturally large and it put a lot of white space between the lead and first sections. But if you think Garner should be mentioned, you could put the list back in. Or how about

• 4 (including Garner Ted Armstrong)

Whatever is ok. --RelHistBuff 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that all four children should be named. This is exactly where I came in on this article July 21: the names of the children were incomplete and incoherent, showing three children instead of four, and only two of those in the "family" section, with Garner Ted buried way in the bottom of the article. This is a biography. Full family information is important. This mundane information is more important in a biography than is a detailed exposition of his views, in fact, which should be handled by a very brief description and then a see also pointing to the main article on his theology.

The names of children are routine obituary information and belong in a biographical article. In addition, his son-in-law via one of the daughters joined him in managing the church, which is relevant; there's a pattern of having family members deeply involved that belongs in a biography. That's objective fact and NPOV. A reader can decide for themselves if it's perjorative (nepotism) or laudatory (a close family). If a reader wishes to research the family, they need names. Leaving them out, which blocks such research, is not appropriate. Also, that he had a son who pre-deceased him is the sort of tragedy that belongs in any public figure's bio, see John_Edwards#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_family. Al Gore's biography on Wiki goes so far as to mention his dead sister. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 01:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no intent of leaving out the mention of the names in the article. They should certainly be mentioned in the article. This is only about mentioning the four names in the infobox. It is a writing style concern. That said, I really do not care so much about the infobox. However, I have major concerns about the article and I have not yet decided to go into it too deeply. So far I did only light work and touchups. --RelHistBuff 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy

I hope I am ok posting this here. This talk page has so much here and it is very confusing trying to follow everything. I saw at the top of the acticle that the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is in question. Let me say that I checked out this article about a year ago. It was riddled with errors and filled with statements that to me seemed very bias against the man. The article has signifigantly improved. From what I've read in this article compared to what I've read in Herbert W. Armstrong's autobiography and many of his other books and booklets, including 1975 In Prophecy, this article is very factual. As far as neutrality: The article reads as anything else in any encyclopedia I've ever read, someone presenting facts in an encyclopedic way with out any bias. I didn't notice any statements that I would consider bias, as I did in the article a year ago. Hope this helps.72.79.22.33 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, his autobiography is a self-published source and WP:VERIFY does not consider that an WP:NPOV source. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The two main sources are his autobiography which, of course, do not contain elements that may have been disagreeable to Armstrong and Flurry's book written by the son of the founder of the Philadelphia Church of God, the current publisher of Armstrong's books. Other pro-Armstrong sources such as Boston, Hoeh, Nickels, and Rader make up the rest. The use of other sources is clearly needed. --RelHistBuff 17:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the two terms that you linked here(WP:VERIFY & WP:NPOV). I'm not clearly seeing why you're using them to dispute this article. The first: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Who could be more reliable on a source about one's life than the person who is writing about his own life. Do you mean to tell me that if Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln had written autobiographies they couldn't be used as sources in articles about each of them respectively. The second: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." RelHistBuff stated: "The two main sources are his autobiography which, of course, do not contain elements that may have been disagreeable to Armstrong and Flurry's book written by the son of the founder of the Philadelphia Church of God, the current publisher of Armstrong's books. Other pro-Armstrong sources such as Boston, Hoeh, Nickels, and Rader make up the rest." Just because they are "pro-Armstrong sources" doesn't make then unreliable, and it doesn't make the information not useful. As a matter of fact you'll find very little (if any) of other sources out there that do not agree with these other than those that are slanderous, pejorative and based on heresay (such as the claims of plagiarism on Armstrong's part in the United States and Britain in Prophecy, which is just that, "heresay", because no one has offered any proof). NPOV cont'd: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." So you're saying that because these points of view are favorable they can't be used? Well, I think that these two policies conflict with each other and wikipedia needs to re-think them. Also, with what I stated above about very little (if any) of other sources out there that do not agree with these other than those that are slanderous,pejorative and based on heresay, and the fact that you don't want to use the autobiography and "sources such as Boston, Hoeh, Nickels, and Rader",who are "pro-Armstrong", then you might as well hang it up and not have an article at all. You probably need to delete the whole thing, because by wikipedia's own regulations, this article shouldn't even exist. Or, am I not understanding what wikipedia is saying in the information I've quoted?72.79.38.223 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps rewrite your post so that it doesn't contain huge chunks of material copied from other pages? A link to the appropriate pages and a line or two to provide context is plenty. If you wish to discuss the guidelines and policies, those talk pages are the place to do it. Pairadox 00:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who could be more reliable on a source about one's life than the person who is writing about his own life. History has shown that almost _anyone_ is a better source than the subject of an autobiography. :-) Check out the studies about the reliability of eyewitness testimony sometime....--SarekOfVulcan 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to 72.79.38.233: I never said that I don't want to use the autobiography or those sources. I just said that other sources must be used because Armstrong, Flurry, Hoeh, etc., will push their own POV. They are reliable to some extent, but clearly from a particular POV. Other sources are just as reliable, but from other POVs. In order for the article to remain NPOV, other sources must be used. --RelHistBuff 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio and publishing

I edited boldly in this section by removing the Plain Truth headline "Hitler did not die". Although this is another example of his sensational predictions, I think one example is good enough. I also removed the purported prediction of the "United States of Europe" which was meant to be an apologist's response. This topic is already mentioned in the next section and in any case having tit-for-tat responses (lists of correct/incorrect predictions) is not the aim of a biography. Would be interested in comments on the edit. --RelHistBuff 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral -- after some of the edit wars on Freemasonry, I've come to see tit-for-tat as occasionally being the only way to maintain NPOV.

And Jeb, we didn't want you to completely disappear -- please continue to discuss and edit the article with us.--SarekOfVulcan 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this page dropped off my watchlist. I've missed so much!! Anyway, I've already provided my thoughts here. Basically, the claim of "sensationalism" isn't supported by any sources that make that claim, but rather offer evidence of sensationalism. Pairadox 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the middle paragraph should either have a cite identifying the critics who made the statement or it should have a {{fact}} tag or it should be dropped. --RelHistBuff 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for now. Pairadox 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Current status

As you can see, I made a number of changes: fix text to chronological order, remove redundancies, remove non-notable items, add items concerning early influences, healing and British Israelism, and add citations. You can see it all in the edit summaries. Thoughts anyone? Are there any POV-related issues? --RelHistBuff 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about commenting on my own comment. I forgot that I should respond to Lisa's note about separating his views into a brief section. Since Armstrong is a religious figure, some of his views/publications are quite notable and they are a part of his story. I thought it would be better to reveal them in chronological order rather than separating them into one section. Concerning the family info, please go ahead and add the info about the son-in-law and about the loss of Richard David. I didn't do it because I don't have the sources. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The new edit expanding "Final Years" is pretty good, I'd wanted to do some work there myself. I did "trim the fat" out of the paragraph regarding Mystery of the Ages - I don't think the average reader cares when Armstrong addressed an Ambassador class. I'd still like to do some work in there and remove the non-notables- the funeral details seem superfluous, and I think the "doctrinal revision" stuff would probably be best left to a mention with a link to Worldwide Church of God or Armstrongism, but I'd rather you guys look it all over first and see what you think. - jere71.203.211.107 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You all probably see it in the history, but I just wanted to mention that the text that jere and Pairadox trimmed/changed was on text recently added by two anonymous IPs (72.150.187.151 and 65.1.227.245). And I definitely agree with your trimming. A lot of non-notable stuff got added in by the IPs that were removed by Pairadox. One of the fact tags was placed by Pairadox on cited text that I recently added because the anon had inserted new text and moved my cite behind his own added text! One has to really watch this article, as it degrades rather quickly from the anonymous edits. --RelHistBuff 06:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you cut out a bit too much: the article just has to be NPOV, not bare-bones. I'm going to double-check and see if there's any cited material I could put back. (And I dreamed that I was meeting Armstrong last night -- I think I've been working on this too much....)--SarekOfVulcan 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it could be cited, go ahead and put it back. The problem is that the anon editors put stuff in without any citations and no discussion on the talk page. --RelHistBuff 13:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you guys feel is proper - this is a group project. :) I personally would still shrink the "doctrinal revision" bit because Armstrong's successors are STILL fighting over it. (Tkach says "He told my daddy to do it", Flurry says "Nuh uh! He wouldn't have!", and my own sense of biography says "In the end, is it more relevant to the man's life or to the church?") :) - jere71.203.211.107 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading Raising the Ruins

I picked RtR up at the library last night, but haven't had a chance to start reading yet.--SarekOfVulcan 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself! :) I've read it three times now. I do not find it as 100% invaluable as Jeb does, but it does have its merits - and its cons. - jere71.203.211.107 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Garner Ted's Phone Call

This text now exists in the article...

"There were those that perhaps still believed that his son Garner Ted would finally reconcile with his father, and return to lead the Church. While the younger Armstrong attempted to phone his father over the New Years Day holiday, he was told that his father would not come to the phone."

Although it is sourced as "Telephone conversation between G.T. Armstrong and J.B. Heath, January 14, 1986", we do not know where this appeared as a verifiable source. I've never seen this in any work on the subject. More to the point, is it relevant? Maybe we'd be better off noting that Armstrong was originally going to allow the Advisory Board to pick his successor, and then decided to do it himself after all (which I do know exists in several sources). What do you guys think? jere71.203.211.107 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your argument makes sense. Give it a shot, see how it flies.--SarekOfVulcan 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There, I've put in an altered version that still makes reference to Garner Ted & Roderick Meredith while noting sources. I wanted to use an accompanying citation from Feazell's book as well just for thoroughness, but go figure, I opened my big mouth and now I can't find the book around here. (I just had it a couple of nights ago - argh!) - jere71.203.211.107 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(My comment after edit conflict)That text was put in by an anonymous IP with the cite to the telephone conversation. I commented out the cite (because it is really not a citation) and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. I believe there is a source for the text and it is most likely an issue of Ambassador Report, but I didn't put the cite in, knowing the environment surrounding this article. In my opinion, AR could be used as a source. Polemical and apologetic literature are often used as reliable sources to show two different points-of-view. This article uses a good dose of apologetic literature (Armstrong's biography and Flurry's book) for sources, but no polemical literature. --RelHistBuff 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm okay with Ambassador Report as a source for stuff like this. Please note that I also used Tkach's book in my edit (diametric opposition to Flurry), and if I can find Feazell's around here, I should be able to add that one as well. - jere71.203.211.107 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador Report is anti-HWA. I'd accept them as proof that there were dissenters to HWA's regime, and use them for examples of things that were being said by his opponents, but I don't think they should be a reliable source on whether Garner Ted Armstrong made a specific phone call. AR is close to being self-published, so is questionable under WP:RS. Issues discussed in AR were also sometimes mentioned on in the regular press, though such external reports would be tedious to track down. I suppose you could say 'Ambassador Report claimed that Garner Ted made the call...' EdJohnston 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with anti-HWA sources in and of themselves - best and most balanced accounts tend to be compiled from different sides of the fence. I'd use more anti-HWA sources here but they tend to be repetitive, harder to find, and often self-published. jere71.203.211.107 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One could also argue that pro-HWA books like Armstrong's biography and RtR are "self-published" in that their respective church organisations (the former WCoG and the PCoG) published their books. I agree with jere that the article needs to have both sides of the story. --RelHistBuff 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine

What happened to the citations to Time? --Bejnar 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I argued above that the Time references should be restored to the article. If you are inclined to do so, please go ahead. EdJohnston 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)