Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus Building Exercise

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Qualifications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Have you ever written a book, Jebbrady? 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:CCC|Consensus can change]]

message: 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: 
Cadwallader 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Details

message: "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”[].
This is the reason that I lobbied for the section on controversy.
Jebbrady 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-sequitor and the Same Old POV

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References and footnotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Extra line breaks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  (minus the prophetic flavor) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  User conduct RFC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: I concur, had thought of same thing. - jere71.203.211.107 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I fixed a broken link. This is caused when the shortcut empty named tag is used (e.g., ). 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)
thread_title:  Beginnings of Ministry edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Any shots available of Armstrong in his radio studio, or speaking in front of an audience? EdJohnston 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photos of Armstrong's grave available, but does it need one?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality and Factual Accuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Current status

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reading ''Raising the Ruins'' 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Garner Ted's Phone Call 

message: What happened to the citations to Time? --Bejnar 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Time magazine