Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Raising the Ruins

Jeb, by now, I think we all understand that you feel that Raising the Ruins is an invaluable reference. Can you stop mentioning it so often, please? (I count 10 references so far, not including this section.)--SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, No offense, but you were brought in by Lismall as a third party, and that carries with it responsibility--there is a standard of maturity, and I gotta be frank, the last 24 hours you've not been helpful, and now you've unfortunately put yourself in a position to get brushed aside--and will be if need be. I can and will go out and get an effective third party, something I've never had to do. People can accuse me of "ownership" in saying that, but Wikipedia will see that my position on how to approach the controversy of Armstrong's life is best for wikipedia, is based on knowledge, and you'll have found that you wasted your time. I'll continue to refer to Raising the Ruins, as administrators who may drop into the discussion need to see that my statements are backed up by fact (a third party monograph based on court documents), instead of declarations with nothing backing it up--something I see a lot of on this page, which wastes everyone's time. If you and the IP address have a problem with my posts being geared toward administrators , then you make my point for me about how they are a great benefit.
The way you jumped into my dialog with the IP address today and leveled vicious criticism of me was way out of line and pointless, and it was based on not reading my post carefully anyway, as it had not been intended for you, obviously. Then unilaterally rewording my postings without addressing my direct respsonse to the query you put out on archiving, and worse, coming in later with "IP" to make the silly George Bush, religion bashing comments, have further tarnished you. If you don't show some neutrality and maturity, I'm simply going to brush you aside as I sell to administrators what I know is the right tenor for the future of this article.
P.S. Answer this for me: I see the Preekout has asked the IP address guy to get a user account with Wikipedia several times. You've been oddly silent on that. any thoughts there? Jebbrady 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Maybe he's been silent because it has nothing to do with editing the article? 24.6.65.83 08:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Jeb, that's it. The next time you characterize something we do (or don't do) as "odd" or "strange", I'm reporting you for WP:NPA violations.--SarekOfVulcan 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since i'm being brought up here I'll add my 1.5 cents. I'm one of those wikipedians who believes in user accounts, especially for frequent contributors with dynamic IP addresses. It usually makes it a tremendous pain to track who is actually doing edits, plus if an ip only editor is making major changes or doing a revert war on a page it's that much harder to actually address him. My advise remains the same as it always has, welcome to the community, get an account, log in Preekout 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a dynamic IP so it's just as easy to track my edits as a registered account. However, it does apply to Jeb, who still persists in using two different IP addresses in addition to his registered account. Would you care to address that issue, Preekout, since you're weighing in? 24.6.65.83 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure I'l address that issue too. I think all users should log in to make their edits so we can track them. I'm not being selective here with my opinion or singling you out. It just happens to be your the only IP address posting actively on the page right now. In either regard this subject doesn't really have anything to do with the article so like you said above the less time wasted on it the better. Preekout 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I own a copy of said book. The price was pretty high in my area when it first came out and I waited until it appeared in the used bookstore. :) I do not find it quite as laudable as Jebbrady makes it out to be sometimes, but I find it a better (if agenda-laden) read on the topic than some of the other works that have come out over the years. However, as so much of it is basically a rewrite of PCG's old "WCG Doctrinal Changes and the Tragic Results" with a lengthy, more recent epilogue, I haven't found a lot in it that's really useful for these purposes yet. Maybe after I finish my rereads. -- jere71.203.211.107 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing my post against my request

Sarekofvulcan has ignored my request to not summarize my writings. He now has reverted my attempt and to undo his summary of what I said, after I specifically requested it be archived instead as a compromise. I've read the summary, and it makes me squirm (Please read the dialog today with Sarek, and it's kind of obvious why I would be uncomfortable with him in particular paraphrasing my words). I've seen some of his characterization of what I said, and let's just say I wasn't pleased. Jebbrady 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady Here the dialog, is what I requested...

Sarek: "The last archive I did was pretty straightforward, as there was a 5-month break between discussions. On what's left, it's a lot harder to find a place to break, since most of the issues are ongoing. Can anyone see a good place to break, or should we just leave the whole thing for now?"--SarekOfVulcan 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My question and first request (which came immediately) Sarek, "will archiving make it less likely that administrators will go back and review the controversy over the last 12 months? I want it all readily available, because there is a tendency for two editors to describe my activity in a way that belies the record. I haven't been perfect as a new editor, but I want the sun to shine on things brightly". 208.253.158.36 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

"I'd add that the archiving of what came before the five month break cuts off the dialog of mine with one of these editors, who, I've been informed, has been recruited by the other editor in bringing accusations against me before the Wikipedia staff. I've read their accusations and much, much prefer the record to speak, and as much in the open as possible. 208.253.158.36 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady"

Sarek then began to actually summarize my posts, without reply to my question or addressing me at all.

I then made this firm request "Sarek, I'm sorry but you wasted your time in starting to summarize my words in past postings. I won't allow anyone to summarize or characterize in their own words what I wrote. If Edjohnson says we have to archive then so be it. I made my concerns known about two editor's unfair characterizations of my postings to administrators, launching formal 'charges' against me, and I implied that I don't want to tempt cursory study of the issue by administrators down the road, by implication. It's getting reverted. It's a dead subject; so don't waste your time with an argument why you think it's fine. P.S. You didn't address the plea I made, and that concerns me."

Still no reply, but more summaries have been done.

Jebbrady 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Preekout, you seem familiar with Wikietiquette and Wikipedia in general. You haven't commented on the content of the article, but do you have any thoughts on Sarek summarizing my own words without asking me, then reverting my undo? Jebbrady 09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Jeb, you may disagree with his summaries but that does not mean you have the right to selectively remove them in such a way that it changes their meaning. Removing another editors comments is a big no-no. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RTP. 24.6.65.83 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

summaries "removed selectively" to change meaning

"IP", I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here:

"Jeb, you may disagree with his summaries but that does not mean you have the right to selectively remove them in such a way that it changes their meaning. Removing another editors comments is a big no-no. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RTP. 24.6.65.83 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)"


That's best shown by looking at the diffs. This compares the pre-summary version to the full summary version.[1] This compares the full summary version to your latest attempt to remove the summaries. Notice how only some of Sarek's work is gone, but what's left is Sarek's summary of primarily Jeb's posts without the acknowledgement of Sarek's authorship?[2] This next diff compares what you left with my cleanup,[3] which you can see returns things to their pre-summary status.[4] 24.6.65.83 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We've argued in circles over and over. Do you really think that's what I was trying to do? I've explained that it was a technical error and you continue to describe it in other terms, as if it was bad faith. Sarek brushed aside my inquiry about archiving without responding, and did not seek my one input in going forward with summarizing MY words--and these were not even postings he had been involved in in any way. He did not respond to my query about archiving, but began actually refactoring--way beyond what I obviously would have wanted based on what I said in the first query about archiving. It all there. against a Wikipedia policy and without consulting me in any way, then continued to do it after I told him not and I reverted the first summary. He then continued rewriting several other posts and reverting my undo. You then got involved in reverting my undo, causing the confusion, as you were rapid fire pushing a revert war against Wikipedia policy. You got involved even though the record shows you were not involved in the original discussion of archiving in any way. Do you really think I'm going to waste my time looking at the three links you put up in light of this. How about not brushing aside my request on this talk page to not reword what I posted? Dead subject. I'm not responding anymore to this. I'll just paste this summary of what happened or the original dialog. Cheers. 69.115.162.235 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbray
I described the result; I did not speak to the motive. Your question about what admins will do can't be answered; to my knowledge, there has been no survey seeking their tendencies in such a situation, and it's faulty logic to try to generalize the actions of a large group of people with insufficient data. I'm sorry you feel that it's a waste of time to do minimal research on the mistake you made so you can avoid similar ones in the future. 24.6.65.83 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My proposal for Section on Controvery

It's time to address this issue. As I have said, it is the only way to deal with such a figure, as it allows editors to explore the issue evenhandedly, citing detractors and defenders, letting the reader know of both, which would be impossible to do in the narrative flow of biographical article. For instance, parenthetical references to both sides of an issue of controversy, within the narrative, would of course start to look ridiculous very quickly. I think we can all agree on that.

I haven't gotten and responses to my references to such a section, but I think now is the time to begin discussing it.

Jebbrady 09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I'm not opposed to a controversy section, but it has to make sense. Putting his divorce and remarriage in controversy wouldn't make sense, as that's biographical information. Controversy about his doctrine, otoh, would make perfect sense to move.--SarekOfVulcan 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you know about this subject, but I need to correct you: he did not "divorce and remarry". His wife died, he got married, then he filed for divorce.
You're right about one issue: the divorce is part of the narrative of his life. The reasons for it and the background would have to be supplied as part of the narrative. On a side note, realize that in the past, it was simply stated in the narrative that he married a young vixen half his age yada yada yada. No background or context. It was part of a clear tabloid style of innuendo--all suggesting that Armstrong was a bad guy--not who he said he was. The simplest way to clear the trashy POV was to simply delete it. Now that there is great energy to further improve the article after the POV was cleared , someone knowledgeable about the subject should take the lead in dealing with it, don't you think?
Two more questions: 1) What is your solution for the problem of seemingly everything negative said about Armstrong being traced back to the Ambassador Report? Do you know anything about that publication and it's history? It’s famously known as a "hearsay rag" with no mainstream editorial standards--it's also famous for citing "unnamed sources". It has had an obvious COI, as the publishers battled Armstrong for power when he was alive, and always held evangelical protestant beliefs, which they kept hidden for a time, until Armstrong died. They then turned the church to evangelical teachings, lied about the doctrinal changes to member systematically, and collected (stole) about over a billion dollars from members in five years before the changes could no longer be hid.
2) Do you think a person heavily involved in revising an article should be have a certain requisite knowledge about a subject, and what is that level--how do we define " knowledgeable? One third party on this page complained about me mentioning Raising the Ruins "10 times". Raising the Ruins That really bothered them. My distinct impression was that they would never read that book, despite their zeal in influencing the article, and despite it obviously being an excellent source to balance things especially(if you want to debate that, let's talk). 69.115.162.235 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Jeb, there are lots of reliable sources for the "negative" things that have been said, including Time, The Telegraph, New Times Los Angeles and the Pasadena Star News, just to name a few. The Ambassador Report has no more COI than Rader, Hoeh, Flurry, Nickels, or Armstrong himself, so obviously COI alone is not a reason to automatically rule it out. 24.6.65.83 10:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What negative things? The first two things you had on that list (The Telegraph, New Times Los Angeles and the Pasadena Star News) with links I read and their was nothing suggestive of Armstrong engaged in unethical activity. But in general, as for any publication, where did they get their sources? The Ambassador cites unnamed sources, so anything "exceptional" that's traced back to the Ambassador Report isn't getting in this article according to Wikipedia policy. If Time, The Telegraph, New Times Los Angeles and the Pasadena Star News are used to hide the pitiful editorial oversight of the original source--the Ambassador Report--than common sense should prevail at Wikipedia. Any attempt to cite policy of "standard practice" in using such mainstream sources that rely on the AP is really an unethical way of trying to skirt the intent of wikipedia polices is not a sincere attempt to put forward a good article, and I expect cooperation and honesty going forward with these concerns.If I remain involved here, I will harp on that argument again, until it's seered into the brains of every third party. Jebbrady 16:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
As far as COI. the Ambassador is direct COI by a publisher shown to be corrupt and dishonest in the court of law, as seen in the court documents shared in Raising the Ruins.Jebbrady 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


The negative things you reference in your first question, of course. I'm not going to get into it with you about Verifiablity v. Truth, because the policy page WP:V covers that better than I could. 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' And further down the page, 'In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.' If you have questions about the reliability of a source, you may want to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where uninvolved editors can check it out and offer an opinion. 24.6.65.83 19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK to archive items 1-20 from the Talk page?

I would like to archive everything before Jeb's post called 'Collecting Tithes.' Please let me know if anyone objects. Thanks to those who have been helping to summarize. Be aware that, even when material is archived, it is still easy to go and look at the older discussions. I intend to add all this stuff to Archive_1. EdJohnston 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Johnson. Please go ahead and archive. Your point is well taken that people will still be able to review the full discussions-I had expressed concern there. But know my biggest concern is not the "what" but the "who" and the "how". I simply will not let Sarek or the unsigned gentleman put what I wrote into their words. Nor anyone else. I'm sure you can understand my concern, especially as you skim the posts from last couple days. Sarek's thought process toward my actions and position on several issue is on display. This is a "redline issue" for me, as they say. In my view, their vehemence to not honor my request is immoral. And, as you know, this country has a tradition of free speech.
Can we please ask them what is their great motivation, that outweighs my simple request to not have another individual characterize what I said? Jebbrady 11:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
P.S. Th "IP address" (ip for short) is trying a revert war with me, now that Sarek has retreated from a revert war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebbrady (talk • contribs)
Um, Jeb, it was 10:30 at night, and my battery was running out. "Retreated from a revert war" is a severe mischaracterization.--SarekOfVulcan 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You can ask me anything you like, Jeb, you don't need to ask Ed's permission. What you shouldn't be doing is removing the posts of other editors just because you don't like them. I've already asked Ed to look at this situation with an eye to restoring the comments you insist on blanking in defiance of talk page guidelines because I don't want this to be between you and me. 24.6.65.83 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That comment was removed accidentally, as I informed Edjohnson. A lot of chaos has entered into this situation the last several days. Thanks for saying all the right things about it not being about me and you. I wholeheartedly agree.Jebbrady 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
And yet you don't bother to restore the comments that you mistakenly removed. Acknowledging the error is meaningless without corrective action. 24.6.65.83 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You corrected it before I knew what had even happened. We're kind of beating a beating a dead horse now. Any thoughts on the "controversy section"? Don't hold back--let your thoughts flow.Jebbrady 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
It's only a dead horse when you stop doing it. You still don't include edit summaries, despite our requests to start using them, and your being told about how to set your preferences to enforce their inclusion. Are you going to rule this a dead horse as well?--SarekOfVulcan 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, Jeb? This[5] shows that you knew for over an hour before I finally corrected it myself.[6] You had time to make 9 other edits in between that time.[7] 24.6.65.83 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to undo the refactoring

Since Jeb complained, I went and reviewed WP:REFACTOR, which says that if another editor objects to the refactoring of a Talk page, it needs to be undone. "..If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.." If Sarek restores his summary lines in a free-standing comment of his own, in normal chronological order, then Jeb can't complain. Editors are free to summarize the views of others, and the latter can respond as they wish. EdJohnston 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the last sentence there. Does that mean he can summarize, but it has to be done differently than the way he has been trying to do it? Jebbrady 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
(edit conflict) So if Sarek had placed his comments at the end of each section Jeb wouldn't be able to remove them, but because they were at the beginning he can? Wild. In that case, I'm going to restore the summarized sections to the text they had before Sarek started. What's there now is vastly different because Jeb only removed part of the work Sarek did. I'm also going to restore the various comments that Jeb removed from active discussions. 24.6.65.83 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little lost, because it seems some technical issue are coming into play. I'm quite new to Wikipedia--the Armstrong issue on this page was what got me involved for the first time. What I'm trying to say is that my lack of experience with technical issues at Wikipdia should not be interpreted as bad faith.Jebbrady 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Nothing more technical than selecting text, hitting delete and checking your work against previous versions. 24.6.65.83 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The content "removed" from active discussions resulted, I think, either from my confusion over the reverts that were imposed rapid fire style, or perhaps from the insert point jumping while I was posting comments after I accidentally hit the wrong key when at the extreme left margin. This has happened to me several times, but figuring out what has been deleted is not easy--I'm surprised anyone noticed. I don't think you've got anything to worry about down the road.Jebbrady 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
When dealing with somebody who is in the habit of blanking, and not doing it very well, it's always wise to make sure posts aren't disappearing. 24.6.65.83 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Somewhere above Jebbrady asked for my opinion on the summarization of this talk page. I have to agree with EdJohnston on this one, when I went and reviewed WP:REFACTOR the same thing he found stood out to me, but the sentence right before even more "...If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted..." I can understand the wish to make this page more relevant to the current discussions and archival is fine but summarizing and hiding an editors comments against their wishes is bad mojo and generally gives me the icky feeling of censorship. Preekout 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And if Sarek's summaries had actually altered the posts they summarized I'd be in total agreement with you. Since they consisted of additional comments without the removal of the source posts, and those very source posts are now archived and "hidden" even more with just the summaries as a stand-alone section, I don't see that this is a better solution. 24.6.65.83 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is more in the hiding of the editors work and replacing it with the summary. Archiving without summarizing allows a third party to go through the posts and obtain their own point of view, albeit quite a long read through. Preekout 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't comfortable with hiding the source either, but he wasn't "replacing" it. Ed did ask somebody to try to summarize things, after all, and Sarek volunteered to do the first part of it. The original idea was that somebody else would summarize his summaries and distill out the major issues. I hope that aspect hasn't been lost. 24.6.65.83 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, if I understand refactoring correctly, I should be able to put the summaries back in the sections if I don't hide the text. Correct? (And I wouldn't add summaries to the archived sections that I didn't already summarize.)--SarekOfVulcan 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the REFACTOR guideline, what you describe would still count as refactoring, and we could only do it if Jeb does not object. Actually, I think that your existing summary is helpful, and it might be a better use of our editing time to get started on a more targetted rewriting task, or negotiating one specific point about H. W. Armstrong. I still feel that the current article is terribly written and needs a lot of work, and I am now aware enough of different viewpoints that I think we could start rewriting in a neutral manner, if we discuss thoroughly. Even just getting agreement on reference cleanup would be useful. EdJohnston 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I find the irony amusing. If Jeb had just left the summaries in place and talked about his concerns instead of acting unilaterally, we probably would have ended up with unformatted summaries now safely tucked away in archives. Instead, they are prominently displayed in their own section on the live talk page. 24.6.65.83 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And again I'll say those should be removed from their own section because they amount to refactoring Preekout 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I suspect you're right. I've taken it over to the Village Pump for more opinions, just to be sure.--SarekOfVulcan 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: There was one response at the Village Pump, which I copy below. 24.6.65.83 21:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • : That's fine, I guess, but kind of unique. I doubt other editors will object, but if they do, you should probably convert the Hidden begin/end templates into a colored box, I guess. ←BenB4 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary by SarekofVulcan, broken down by section

(I'm moving Sarek's summaries into their own section, per formatting advice of EdJohnston and the desire to Sarek's posts preserved. 24.6.65.83 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

This also seems icky because it seems like you are trying now to create just a summary section and eventually everything else will be archived off (basically effecting what user Jebbrady is complaining about now). I would strongly suggest that you have Sarek place these inline after the suggested articles and then remove this section quickly. If this is already your intention then good deal this comment is superfluous please ignore, if it is not then please step back and consider that this does not look like you are dealing in good faith with either user Jebbrady or the WP:REFACTOR policy. Remember no one is entitled to act in Bad faith just because you think someone isn't acting in Good faith. Preekout 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have preferred that the summaries be attached to the sections they summarize so that people could easily see the source, but the revert wars have necessitated this route. My interest is in preserving Sarek's work since I feel very strongly that removing comments because somebody doesn't like them is a BAD THING; where they are placed is of secondary concern. 24.6.65.83 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree: those summaries need to be with their archived comments, or deleted. Since Jeb doesn't easily write concisely, I feel strongly that the summaries should not be deleted.--SarekOfVulcan 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that removing comments because somebody doesn't like them is a bad thing. But where they are placed isn't really a secondary concern it's a primary one in this case. Technically they were part of the re-factoring of this page that was going on so they aren't actually comments on the page. If you want to make them comments they should be placed in their relevant sections. What you are doing right now is creating a summary section, which is in its way a re-factoring. If user Jebbrady (who has precipitated this) has no issue with this then I'll shut up, otherwise this should be handled soon. Preekout 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just noting quickly that this is the generic "you" above -- I didn't create the section, just the contents.--SarekOfVulcan 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I could have worded that better but I did mean the generic "you" Preekout 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New Intro Would Be Solid, but for one Misleading Statement

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Jebbrady -- Clarification: Main message of church is "World Tomorrow" and "Family of God", not English-speakers being descendents of lost tribes

Curious changes

'Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Wilburweber -- Made cited edits about Armstrong's debatable claims/statements, but they were reverted. Article should present two sides.
  • Jebbrady -- Sensitive religious beliefs -- WP history of religious bigotry. Please cite existing passages. Discuss problematic content. Reword POV passages together. History degree qualifies me to evaluate sources. No need to insert negativity for NPOV. Added lots of positive things: why didn't you comment on their absence? Brittanica Mozart article doesn't focus on personal life. If you can document pattern of negative behavior, bring it here, and have impeccable cites. References to religious leaders' mistakes hurts their credibility. Will not allow November articles to return in any way. Problems with son were doctrinal, not personal. Inappropriate negativity not tolerated. Wikipedia has supported my changes and we will not allow unwarranted bigotry/negativity back in. I put in facts about son: edit left negative impression. You made it too long. Darwin material unneccesary. If you assert other change, there will be long battle.

Superfluous Additions

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Jebbrady -- Wilburweber's Cited edits were sensational or superfluous. Edit referring to a particular source for an Armstrong theory is irrelevant, as many have written on the subject, and Armstrong cites many sources. Edit mentioning that Armstrong believed that we are not yet at the end of days and that church members should observe Old Testament feast days is superfluous. Reference to associates is tangential. Journalistic standards of Armstrong's newspaper make irrelevant Armstrong's sensationalistic claims, and "sensationalistic" is POV anyway, and it got more people reading his materials. That's most of your contributions: why are you coming up with new negative cites when there is positive uncited material?

Response

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Wilburweber -- I am a trained writer, with no affiliation with the subject, and Jebbrady's comments are demeaning. I contributed variety of interesting things. You removed factual, documented statement about revocation of ministerial credentials. Neither of us knows exactly why, but we know it happened, and it struck me as clarifying.
    • Jebbrady -- WW's analysis is off. He wasn't fired, he quit, whether before or after revocation, so mentioning revocation is trivial or misleading.
  • Wilburweber -- Jeb says that WP is not platform for character assassination, then assassinates character of current WCG leadership using unsubstantiated info.
    • Jebbrady -- It's substantiated by court documents included in Raising the Ruins. Summary: they were planning far-reaching changes while concealing the plans for the changes. When people bailed, they kept the money. People should be using this as a reference, it's a treasure trove of primary sources.
  • Wilburweber -- I was seeking balance, not a battle, and it's disquieting that Jeb characterizes it as such. Current article state (July 1) is not balanced.
    • Jebbrady -- I'll explain what balance really is further down.

Third Party Observation

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • 71.127.205.70 -- Jebbrady has a COI, but Wilburweber's tack is more dangerous. His individual POV or mutually presented POVs are becoming the norm. Please discuss changes: conversations are better than crusades.

Re: Third Party Observation

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Wilburweber -- nice to see someone else contributing, not so nice they oppose free contribution. There is balance in the story, but soft-pedaling controversy will not bring it. Why can Armstrong's son be criticized, but not him? Anon didn't comment on accusations of money hoarding: if I were going to claim that, I'd document it. I've been editing WCG article: accusation of crusade against WCG is curious.
    • Jebbrady -- I did document it, it's in Raising the Ruins, which is footnoted to the gills. There's a strange lack of interest in using this ref.

Reply to Wilberweber

Summary by SarekOfVulcan:

  • Jebbrady -- BLP should apply to Armstrong as there's a college named after him that owns the copyrights to his materials. I'm not arrogant, but my editing was vindicated by your irrelevant COI accusations. You're making personal attacks, but I haven't, although I could have, since you're focused on tangential issues. Anyone can comment on quality of edits without getting into identity of editor. I've claimed that someone was a religious bigot, but never attacked them or brought up their affiliations. I've already gone over this, but I'll do it again, since you questioned the merits of a respected article which had been edited by sincere editors whose work was respected. You only cited the material you added, instead of adding cites to the existing material. I invited you to improve the article, but you deleted parts of it. Your negative edits got me to put in positive edits, but nobody's congratulated me for doing it. You agree with me that the previous article was Armstrong-bashing, with lots of negative trivia that wouldn't be in an article about Martin Luther, such as the fact that he married a woman 40 years younger. A historian needs to shift the perspective of the reader.

Referring to the revocation of credentials implies scandalous behavior, but it would take too much explaining to show the actual facts. He really started his own church because he couldn't understand why the leadership of his church wouldn't publish his beliefs. Controversy could be included, as long as it's relevant and in a separate section. If you really want an NPOV article, why don't you deal with real controversy instead of innuendo and suggestive "facts"? An article about Mozart would explain why he was of note, instead of focusing on his scandalous behavior, which really was scandalous, unlike Armstrong's. Mozart's work is relevant, not his behavior. Accurate facts here are misleading. Editors who have added misleading facts have recently made negative posts about him. You can only prove good faith by working with us, instead of complaining when we remove your edits. And none of this negative info would be posted by people who have read Raising the Ruins, but there's a strange lack of interest in using that reference. Why didn't you add references to positive facts, instead of the ones you put in? I can't take the time to rebut you any more, you can have the last word.

End of Summary by SarekOfVulcan: