Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 1

message: The article Charles Taze Russell is currently the subject of an edit war between Pastorrussell and a consensus of other editors. Pastorrussell says that it is already neutral, on grounds of his special biographical knowledge as a member of the Bible Students and owner of the official Charles Taze Russell website Pastor-Russell.com. Others perceive the article as POV.
Specific issues arising from this Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1#NPOV Dispute include Pastorrussell's assertion that Bible Students are "in charge" of the article, repeated removal of an NPOV tag, and repeated reverts of references to Jehovah's Witnesses in the biographical introduction.
K. posted a Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Religion, but worsening disagreement led to Robert McClenon initiating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, which is ongoing and supported by other editors. Tearlach 17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Archive1 summary'''

message: User:PastorRussell/User:Pastorrussell: Please stop removing the NPOV notice. Several Wikipedians have voiced support for keeping the tag, as evidenced by the vote above. Several other issues have been raised about the article, including possible Wikipedia:copyvio of your own biography on pastor-russell.com, statements made without references, and omission of information about Russell easily found by a Google search.
You are welcome to your opinion, but please remember that you are far outnumbered in your views that the page is neutral, factual (supported by references) and well-written (see Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#An_Outside_Opinion). Comments posted in the last couple of days make it clear that your views do not represent the general consensus, and so you act unilaterally when removing the NPOV tag. Please desist from removing it. --K. 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop removing the NPOV notice

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

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

message: This article must, for the sake of history, show what he believed, and why he believed it.  That was the whole reason for why the clergy oppossed him, and why he received such slanderous terms as "false prophet", "cult leader", etc...  Pastor Russell is single handedly responsible for changing the face of modern Protestantism.  Why and how so?  That is the reason behind showing his doctrinal viewpoints.  Without a clear view of what he believed it is impossible to understand who he was and what he did.  By definition Pastor Russell is a religious leader and as such it is necessary to know what made him different from everyone else. Pastorrussell 11:36, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: I decided to read this article because a Request for Comments has been posted.  
I found the statement on this talk page:  "Bible Students are in charge of this article, and are happy to discuss and view information about historical facts, or the addition of other events in Pastor Russell's life."  That is simply not true in Wikipedia.  It states a proprietary involvement in an article that is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.  
If several Wikipedians think that the article is non-neutral, then the article is non-neutral.  I don't know the details of the dispute, but I can see that there is one.  The article is in need of Wikification.  It does not have enough links to articles about denominations that have been influenced by Pastor Russell for me to view it in context.  
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a controversial denomination as seen by other Christians.  A neutral point of view should include criticisms of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least state more clearly what are seen as the influences of Russell on the Jehovah's Witnesses.  The article does not really give me enough information to be able to assess that.  It appears that it is trying deliberately to avoid that issue, and that appears to be non-neutral.  
It appears that the article needs expansion by presenting views critical of Russell's hermeneutic approach.  
I am not restoring the NPOV banner, but would encourage someone else to restore it.
Robert McClenon 11:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Robert for your sensible comments. I hope your outsider's view will help resolve the dispute over the neutrality and content of this article. Thanks again! --K. 14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I think that the article should be tagged for cleanup even while the RfC is being dealt with.  If the editor whose conduct has been questioned permits us to clean up the article, then the RfC can be downgraded or even withdrawn.  If the editor whose conduct has been questioned interferes with cleanup, then the next step is to request mediation.
I see a few things that need to be done.  A section needs to be added on what Pastor Russell stated were the errors in Protestant doctrine of the time.  There is an external link, which is a source, but it should be summarized.  
Those who question the neutrality of the article should make a list of questions that need sources, and wait a reasonable period of time for someone to provide the sources.  If the sources are not provided after about a week, those statements should be moved to this talk page.
I would like to know the source for the statement that Russell's works were the third most widely sold works in English at the time.  
Since a comment has been made that Russell's divorce was a matter of court record, a summary should be provided, noted as to source, of what was said, and any alternate point of view can be provided.
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are in Russell's tradition.  The Bible Students deny that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a proper link back to Russell.  A summary of that dispute is required.
(By the way, that issue reminds me of the question of Anglican orders, having to do with whether there is a proper apostolic succession.  However, I had never heard of Protestants arguing about apostolic succession until now.  In a pluralistic society, any heretic has the right to found any heresy.)
Robert McClenon 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Is anyone questioning whether Russell was a Protestant?  If so, what do they believe that he was?
I would disagree with any characterization of Protestantism simply based on its separation from the Roman Catholic Church.  There are also schismatic Catholic sects, which are not Protestant.  However, I have read Protestantism defined as a Christian grouping based on the teachings of the Reformers, including the doctrines of the priesthood of all believers, justification by faith alone, and the primacy of the Bible.  Did Russell believe in those doctrines?  It appears that he did.  
Some people might more precisely choose to limit the definition of Protestantism to denominations that also believe in the Trinity.  I am aware that the Jehovah's witnesses do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.  I have not researched whether Russell accepted or disputed that doctrine.  I would reject such a narrow interpretation of Protestantism, and would acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, but that it is not important.  
The fact that Russell broke with traditional Protestant belief is not important.  Tradition is not one of the pillars of the faith of Protestantism.  
Any claim that Russell was not a Protestant seems silly to me.  
This is not material to issues of NPOV.
Robert McClenon 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I wasn't intending to bring up the Protestant thing in relation to the current NPOV dispute. The reason I questioned it was that I had never heard of Russell being called a Protestant minister til I read Pastorrussell's biography. If it appears he was, then I don't have a problem in calling him Protestant. --K. 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tradition was never one of the pillars of the faith of Protestantism.  He disagreed with tradition.  I consider him an honorable heretic in the honorable Protestant tradition.  In a pluralistic society, anyone has the right to be a heretic. In any case, I think that both the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, unless they wish to disclaim that affiliation.
Robert McClenon 02:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Russell a Protestant? 

message: As specified by Wikipedia:Cite sources#When there is a factual dispute, I've moved an unsourced detail to Talk for checking.
:died from complications related to diverticulitis. In years past, he had also expressed problems with heart arrhythmia. In 1910 while on a mission, he nearly went into cardiac arrest
What's the source for these details? (Contemporary accounts of his last days and death can be found here and here). Tearlach 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: His death

message: In response to Tearlach's suggestion, I have performed the unpleasant but necessary task of posting a second Request for Comments, this time concerning the failure of Pastorrussell to comply with Wikipedia official guidelines.  Tearlach has then performed the tedious and unpleasant task of providing additional detail in the RfC.  Thank you, Tearlach.  The RfC should be viewable at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell.  Other Wikipedians may visit the page to read the RfC, and may sign it either to indicate their agreement or disagreement.  Please follow the instructions (which are official Wikipedia policy) on who may edit which sections of the RfC.
Robert McClenon 16:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Request for Comments 

message: I don't claim to know anything about disputes between Protestant sects.  In a pluralistic country, sects have the right to dispute each other, and free exchange of information is the best way to inform people.  
It is not only a Jehovah's Witness, but a few other Wikipedians, who see a problem.  There is a consensus, except by you, that the article as written is not NPOV.  
DO NOT remove the NPOV banner again.  I will not put it up.  That would violate the 3RR.  I will leave that up to the admins.  If I see the banner put up again, and reverted again, I will have to request mediation.
If you think that the rest of the Wikipedians are being unreasonable, I would suggest that you request mediation.  I would be glad to see mediation.
Robert McClenon 02:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One More Time 

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

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

message: The article says :
:Russell founded [...] the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914, a branch of which came under the control of the modern Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now, as far as I can tell, the IBSA that was founded in London in 1914 has always been in it's entirety under the control of the JW or their precursors. At least, the legal entity always stayed with the two other Russel founded (which are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies of New York and Pennsylvania). The three associations seem to have exactly the same path. Flammifer 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Due to this, it's probably a bit misleading to say in the intro that "a branch of which" became JW. Whether JW took control or not, those corporations are all run by JW today. Any info on what happened to the US IBSA? --K. 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it never had the kind of legal status that the UK IBSA had, mostly because such a role was fulfilled by the already existing Watchtower societies. So, while some groups did use that name in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere) before 1914, I don't know how official / legal / formal that was. It seems it was just a label to allow easier identification. Flammifer 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Bible Students Association 

message: Pastorrussell writes:  "There are no problems with POV."  Your unilateral statement that there are no POV problems is arbitrary.  The majority of Wikipedians who have read the article think that it has POV problems.  You state that revising the article to make it more favorable to the Jehovah's Witnesses would rewrite the truth.  The best way to allow the truth to be known is to state it verifiably.  Please cite your sources.   
Pastorrussell writes:  "I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process.  You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try."  I have not read all of the diffs, but it does not appear that anyone has been trying to alter the content of the article, but only to state that certain statements should be presented as POV with sources.  I started to try to improve the article by adding a section on theological views.  That is NPOV because what the theological views of any religion are can be determined by reading its doctrines.  In a pluralistic society, every citizen has a right to their own religious views, all of which are POV, and all of which should be respected.  
I asked for details, as did some other Wikipedians.  I asked for a source on how widely sold his works were.  I have not seen it.  Some Wikipedians asked for a link to an account of his divorce, which was a matter of public record.  If other Wikipedians state he and his wife divorced, I consider a reference to his 'separation' to be less than accurate.  That is why I put an NPOV tag on that section.  
Pastorrussell writes:  "I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree.  But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group."  I agree with the first ssentence, which is why the differing points of view are presented.  The second sentence is a point of view, since it is contested by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  The readers of Wikipedia can be best served by having sourced facts presented about the details of the schism, which have been requested.
Wikipedia has processes, policies, and guidelines.  So far, you are having difficulty in learning to comply with them.  If you think that other Wikipedians are being unreasonable, then we can resort to one of Wikipedia's processes, which is mediation.  If you do not want mediation, please provide us with facts and sources.  I provided the facts that I could from an external link.  If you have the other facts and sources, please provide them.  Robert McClenon 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Process

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

message: Pastorrussell: please stop editing in "diverticulitis" without proof. It's a trivial detail, but exemplifies the whole issue of citing sources. The St. Paul Enterprise source has a contemporary account: "The fact is that he did not die of heart trouble, but of an inflammation of the bladder, and while writing you on Brother Bohnet’s desk I could not fail to see on the burial permit that the cause of death was given as 'Cystitis'". If you know better, provide a reference. If you can't, this is the most specific source we have, and the article should reflect it. Tearlach 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument works both ways. No, it doesn't. Read what Robert said about Wikipedia processes. It works one way only: things go in Wikipedia on the basis of proof - not absence of disproof. See Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have nothing against the possibility of his having some other condition(s) (and frankly, death from cystitis alone sounds fairly unlikely). But if you can't currently provide a specific source, for Wikipedia purposes it's unsubstantiated. Tearlach 02:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diverticulitis

message: Pastorrussell wrote:  "The matter of diverticulitis and heart arrhythmia are mentioned in a Convention Report which I am unable to reference at the moment because I just had surgery and am unable to get around easily. Please ease up and stop nitpicking. I know more about the topic than most anyone."
The details of the causes of his death do not seem important to a discussion of Russell's place in the history of religion.  I would suggest that we leave that section alone until Pastorrussell is stronger.  
I would also suggestion that Pastorrussell should stop trying to assert knowledge that he cannot provide or provide, until he is stronger and can insert sourced material.  I would also ask Pastorrussell to consider whether he currently feels strong enough and well enough to comply with the rules of Wikiquette and to make contributions to this article.
Robert McClenon 14:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of Death Information

message: Some good progress has been made on the introduction, despite the revert war. I think now we should focus on the Early life section.
My feeling is that it has a lot of extraneous detail. Is Russell's mother's maiden name important? Is it relevant to list the name and dates of birth and death of each of his siblings? --K. 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, for a famous individual with non-famous relatives, the consensus on VfD is to merge articles on those relatives to the article on the famous person.  Based on that, I'd say that including basic biographical information on his immediate family is a good idea. --Carnildo 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life

message: Can anyone fill in the gaps for Russell's siblings?
#Frank (1850 - 4 September 1855), died from whooping cough (at what age? 4? 5?)
#Charles Taze II (16 February 1852 - 31 October 1916) (I'm assuming he was second)
#Margaret/"Mae" (? - late 1940s), married name Margaret Land (we need a source for her death and I'm assuming she was third)
#Lucinda (1857 - 1858)
#Joseph Jr. (1859 - 1860)
--K. 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Siblings

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

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

message: The article says :
:Russell founded [...] the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914, a branch of which came under the control of the modern Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now, as far as I can tell, the IBSA that was founded in London in 1914 has always been in it's entirety under the control of the JW or their precursors. At least, the legal entity always stayed with the two other Russel founded (which are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies of New York and Pennsylvania). The three associations seem to have exactly the same path. Flammifer 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Due to this, it's probably a bit misleading to say in the intro that "a branch of which" became JW. Whether JW took control or not, those corporations are all run by JW today. Any info on what happened to the US IBSA? --K. 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it never had the kind of legal status that the UK IBSA had, mostly because such a role was fulfilled by the already existing Watchtower societies. So, while some groups did use that name in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere) before 1914, I don't know how official / legal / formal that was. It seems it was just a label to allow easier identification. Flammifer 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Bible Students Association 

message: Some good progress has been made on the introduction, despite the revert war. I think now we should focus on the Early life section.
My feeling is that it has a lot of extraneous detail. Is Russell's mother's maiden name important? Is it relevant to list the name and dates of birth and death of each of his siblings? --K. 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, for a famous individual with non-famous relatives, the consensus on VfD is to merge articles on those relatives to the article on the famous person.  Based on that, I'd say that including basic biographical information on his immediate family is a good idea. --Carnildo 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life

message: Can anyone fill in the gaps for Russell's siblings?
#Frank (1850 - 4 September 1855), died from whooping cough (at what age? 4? 5?)
#Charles Taze II (16 February 1852 - 31 October 1916) (I'm assuming he was second)
#Margaret/"Mae" (? - late 1940s), married name Margaret Land (we need a source for her death and I'm assuming she was third)
#Lucinda (1857 - 1858)
#Joseph Jr. (1859 - 1860)
--K. 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Siblings

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

message: I've archived discussions that have (mostly) reached closure or are just preamble to the current dispute to Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1. The first entry there summarises the archive. Best check to see if I've snipped anything important that I shouldn't.
New readers note that this article is in a NPOV dispute, and a dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, is ongoing. Tearlach 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive1 created

message: In a letter to the editor, it's said :
:Next, you commented: "He [Rutherford] became the legal counsel of the Jehovah’s Witnesses society and Charles Taze Russell’s attorney in his divorce proceedings and his ‘miracle wheat’ scandal". There are a few problems with this oft repeated account of matters. Let us see what the data show.
:The records show that in June 1903 Charles’ wife, Marie Frances Russell, filed in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a suit for legal separation-- not divorce. Furthermore, on March 4, 1908 the decree of the court was that the two were legally separated--not divorced.
Anybody know about the early century legalese involved ? Is there truly a distinction between divorced and "legally seperated" ? o.O
Also, the bit on the sexual misconduct with the dactilographer could probably take some closer inquiry. The divorce (or whatever it was) wasn't filed for adultery, though it seems fairly likely that there was some.
:A dactilographer is a secretary who types.  A stenographer is a secretary who takes short-hand. Robert McClenon 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a disputed point. The Barbara G Harrison account (hostile but well-referenced enough to check) has a detailed timeline and argues that it was actually a divorce, but that JWs portrayed it as a separation or "partial divorce" for the lesser stigma. Tearlach 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce ? 

message: I've seperated "Theology, Teachings, and Influence " into "Theology and Teachings" and "Legacy", and reworked the "Legacy" part.
I mainly took out two statements that may have there place there but could take some work :
:The effect of Pastor Russell's studies and ministry can be seen in the change of doctrine throughout Protestantism since the early 20th century.
and
:Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell.
The first one doesn't look very NPOV to me, and the second insinuates something that would need proving (that this change was due to Pastor Russell). Was he the first one to have such a view ?
So something could still be added on the influence outside of the direct successors of the movement he founded (if there was such an influence), and eventually on the partial abandonment of his teachings by the JW. Flammifer 21:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: For general information, now noted in the RfC, check out Pastorrussell's recent attempt to have the article permanently locked in his preferred version: 
The admin who commented on the request is now endorsing the RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Charles Taze Russell. Tearlach 23:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to withdraw it. That was placed during the heat of battle, so to speak.  Everyone was going willy nilly trying to put in anything they wanted or could think of, but none of it dealing with Pastor Russell.  Most of it dealt with JWs, and that is unfair.  Not because I am a Bible Student writing this, but simply because it was wrong.  A conscientious JW would do the same as I, since they would probably have access to 75% of the sources I have.  PastorRussell 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Locking attempt

message: Hmm, any evidence that the Worldwide Church of God was influenced by Russell ? It was founded in 1933 and I see no mention of the Bible Students, Pastor Russell or the JWs in it's history or that of his founder, and google apparently doesn't find anything either. Flammifer 12:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, any sources / links on this ? I can't find anything with Google. I don't consider that their teachings being similar is enough. Maybe a note could be added on the artcles about the WCG or Armstrong ? Flammifer 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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