Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 1

message: I attempted to merge information into this article from  aduplicate article "Herbert Armstrong".  However, upon closer examination I discovered there was nothing in that article which was not already written in this one. -- SwissCelt 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the old version of the "Herbert Armstrong" article (before it became the redirect that it is now).  The point about "no middle name" was interesting.  There is even a web reference confirming it.  So I merged that small bit into the HWA article, today.  -Whiner01 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reference is suspect if it claims that Herbert Wright Armstrong had no middle name.  "Herbert W. Armstrong" is unquestionably the most widely used and recognized form. 75.192.212.227 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Herbert Armstrong 

message: The link to a web page comparing Luther and Armstrong was removed. The page is not NPOV but is written by a Worldwide splinter group member claiming Armstrong was superior to Luther. Clear not encyclopedic. RelHistBuff 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther link 

message: This appears to contain all sorts of highly contentious claims about HWA which are not purely encyclopadic. This is badly in need of some culling. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. In fact I already started cleaning this up quite a bit. There were lots of references promoting Armstrong's views and were clearly not NPOV. The "Other doctrines" section seem more like a "Promotion of doctrines". I think it is best just to keep the four major doctrines subsection and remove the other doctrines subsection. RelHistBuff 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have culled and changed a lot, but there is still a lot more work to be done to get this article to be truly encyclopaedic and to demonstrate NPOV. In particular, the Character and Reputation section should be completely rewritten or removed. The long quote from his autobiography looks more like promotion. The external links are either WCG splinter groups promoting HWA or ex-church members attacking HWA. This article may need a complete rewrite. RelHistBuff 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed tag

message: I have moved the post that was originally in another subsection to this subsection at the bottom in order to bring this into chronological order as in standard practise. I have copied and pasted the post below. RelHistBuff 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response, additional input would be welcome especially in regards to Tkach's role during the receivership years. If you have the sources, please cite them. As for the use of Ambassador Report, please note that I used them only as sources for getting factual data and I was very careful not to include the biased commentary. And although AR is biased against the WCG, note that I also used several sources that are biased for the new WCG. The important point is that the article remains neutral, but the sources where the information is from must be cited as per Wikipedia citation policy. In discussing on these talk pages, please sign your post as per Wikipedia guideline. It makes it easier to keep track of the discussion. RelHistBuff 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'll read the Wiki protocol). Your comments on your use of the Ambassador Report are well taken. However, much of the data is available from pro or neutral sources. A quick google yields some interesting things. Using a scandal sheet as a source, however, seriously undermines the well intentioned work done to date. If I wanted to write a critique of George Bush, I would produce a highly more credible article if I quoted from US News than if I quoted from the National Enquirer (if you take my point). Clearly this entry and related entries cannot be owned by any one individual. Let's work together to produce some quality sources. Quoting from a highly biased publication to satisfy source criteria (no matter how carefully selected) is not ideal research practice. User: 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and quality sources

message: This addition you made is done in good faith, but perhaps you could reconsider--it may make people think the old Worldwide Church of God was part of the 'Christian right" political movement, which would be ironic because they specifically taught against the idea that the true church should ever get involved with governemnts and politics. 
Also,though I'm someone who chose to get a degree in history, and thus am someone who understands the importance of citing authorities, I think this particular citation is problematic, because the overall statement could be construed by readers that an "expert authority" from a university sees similarities in the old Worldwide with radical groups that have a legitimately documented history of negative behaviour like the David Koresh's ect...   As you know, the H.W. Armstrong page can be a starting point for people to decide for themselves. Of course if loaded statements are avoided, people curious about H.W. Armstrong will be encouraged rather than discouraged from doing their own independent research to find out more and decide for themselves what to think.  
You know, I wanted to add a statement to temper the professorial thought/ reference, and I really did not want to remove it, but there was just no way to add a tempering thought without the passage appearing ludicrously self-contradictory, or drifting toward op-ed type writing. 
I trust that you'll give these thought careful consideration and I thank you in advance for being objective about these comments.  --Jebbrady 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   "a man whose life reflects broad and important social trends in American society".[1])  For 213.140.6.103;   

message: I rewrote this article from an extreme POV-dominated mess to something close to NPOV. And now it has degenerated again to another mess. Ashes-to-ashes, dust-to-dust. I am bringing back my rewrite and will try again. --RelHistBuff 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Degeneration of articles - the weakness of Wikipedia

message: :I have asked to put the discussion on the talk page. The version that you have put placed is filled with POV, reading more like a tract rather than a encyclopaedia article. I ask that we go back to the original version as a starting point and address each of your objections in turn. At the same time, controversial assertions must be cited (a requirement in Wikipedia). The original version also need more citations which will be done. In the meantime, I will remove what you feel is objectionable or controversial and we can start from there. --RelHistBuff 08:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #1

message: (Incidently you didn't remove the offending portions as you said you would. I will look into increasing the citations beyond reproach--as it stands now, a quick glance reveals to all that the article as it is now surpasses the recent revert that I object to. I certainly will consider specific points where you beleive citations are necessary) 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady
In addition to what I already wrote above, I would add the following: 
Considering your additions turned the Armstrong entry into something resembling a tabloid article (in both the focus of content and legitimacy of sources), whether you can see that or not, and aside from the lack of legitimate sources, I'd like to point to the example of an Encyclopedia Britannica Article on Mozart. Though in Mozart's case it actually has in fact been universally established by scholarly authorities that he did largely live a "scandalous" life, especially for that time, you will find that article to be entirely focussed on the unique activities, works and accomplishments that made him famous, influential, and intersting to begin with. It was his life work that made him a subject of interest and study, and therefore is the very reason why in the first place he would be included at all in such an encyclopedia. Therefore, how much less appropriate is it to include unsubstantiated hearsay? 
I'm frankly amazed that you assert that others contributions somehow contain a lack of nuetral point of view (NPOV).  Meanwhile, your additions strike me as arguably the most obvious in the axe-to-grind-department that I've ever seen. You even slip in sweeping negative digs largely apropos of nothing in the context, into what were normal sounding passages. It would appear that what others added recently reads like a tract in your eyes because you project your own lack of NPOV into the work of others.  Apparently they must be biased somehow because they don't have a burning desire to stretch and strain to cram as much negativity into the article as possible, whatever the level of hearsay and number of unsubtantiated assertions. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady
:I have removed the "conversion" objection and I used your words in replacing "media empire". Could you please also reciprocate rather than making accusations? I am trying to cooperate. --RelHistBuff 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #2

message: I'm not seeing in your tone the making of an honest debate: I don't think my detailed criticism amounts to "accusations" any more than you having first made sweeping, broad assertions that changes I was involved in "read like a tract" and that the article is "filled with POV"( I would specifically characterize those commnents by you as broad, sweeping assertions, but not "accusations".)
Considering that the defining nature of your edits is to change the article over to almost a purely tabloid focus (and to erase information that readers would obviously be interested to know I might add), it appears that your above offer to make relatively miniscule changes based on some points I made--alterations that you are obligated to make anyway by any standard of sholarship, would at least have the appearance of politicking and posturing to caste yourself in a favorable light before the wikipedia staff, and if so, I think it's an insult to their intelligence, and mine--all of ours. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady
:Note that the original article was not "tabloid". It was neutral and, I agree, it could be improved. The first versions tended to not biographic at all and it was rewritten to be NPOV. However, the current version has degenerated to POV-oriented version. Could we start instead with a completely stripped down version and rebuild it piece-by-piece? --RelHistBuff 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #3

message: I can only speak to the end product that appeared after you had made changes, and what you decided to allow to go up, whether or not it was originally written by you, should be and will be attributed to you and will be reckoned as a demonstration of your good faith or lack of it, and not only do I have faith that your intentions and obejctivity will be evaluated from that, I will continue to refer to that edit as if all the material was your own--after all, you posted it. 
If you wish to make specific suggestions for alterations to the article version that you changed, (for clarity, I'm referring specifically to the  version that was cleaned up and rebuilt these past three months and stood unchanged for abvout 7 weeks until your massive edit last week) I will be happy to implement them the most effective and fair way I can, as long as they are NPOV, logical, fair, proportioned, appropriate for an article on Armstrong as opposed to the WCG, and if they meet the overll criteria of professionally serving peoples' curiosity--without manipulating it-- curiosity about his teachings, booklets, the scope of the work, and even his overall moral prestige or lack thereof (if you choose to "go there") by focusing on what has been clearly established.  A new order has come to the plains. 
I appreciate your conciliatory tone, and yearn to give you the benefit of the doubt, but what you have posted so far speaks to a lack of good faith and credibility, and because of that, it seems more expedient and beneficial to those curious about H.W. Armstrong, and for me, to just go strait to wikipedia authorities to settle this.  
You continue to speak of the recent version which was I involved as being completely NPOV, as if your asserting that over and over without specifics will persuade people.  This article you completely trashed was up for 6-7 weeks, with no one during that time besides you seeing fit to alter it in any significant way (except for some additions I made).  Why is it NPOV? You have not gone into a single specific example (while I have provided several examples and comments).  Why is the work others have done on this NPOV?  Because you say it is apparently. 
Let me just ask this: By what authority do you write?  What are your credentials to make such changes, and to feel entitled to a major role in rebuilding the article from scratch as you suggested?  Let's just for a moment lay aside the obvious imbalance in subject matter you presented (again, whether you originally wrote it or not), the axe-to-grind tone, tabloid-like focus (again, please read the Britanica entry on Mozart), and the flagrant NPOV your edit exuded--laying all that aside, your lack of basic familiarity and understanding of Armstrongs teachings JUMP OFF THE PAGE, and anyone who is familiar with these matters can spot it at once, and for that reason alone--not to mention the others--it could become very embarrassing for Wikipedia. An example of this, in addition to what I've pointed out already, though not written by you in the article but still revealing, was the statement you made in a discussion posting where you said "you had decided" after dipping into his autobiography that Amrstrong had in fact labelled the Church of God (Seventh Day) as "Sardis" of the book of Revelation. I have to tell you, that was a basic, foundational teaching of the church he led--and became such early on, and is common knowledge today by hundreds of thousands of people I would guess. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady
:The version I had written was up from mid-May to end-Oct (over 20 weeks). Your 7 weeks came after that. There is no authority that needs to be "shown". I can very well ask the same question to you, but I will not. Everyone is entitled to contribute. That is Wikipedia. The reason I prefer to start from basics is because it can potentially build a well-cited and neutral article. Can we agree on some core basic text and start from that point? --RelHistBuff 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #4

message: The point isn't which article was up first or up longer--arguing from that standpoint would be  absurd. In fact, If I had known prior to this October of the usefullness, prestige, popularity and influence of Wikipedia, and had seen what was presented by you on Armstrong then, I would have been shocked into action at that time. I think my overall point is that you haven't remotely demonstated unbiased good faith,or scholarly command of the subject, yet you attack the work of others in broad strokes verbally and physically because it doesn't conform to your level of negativity.
I have taken the time to get specific and cite examples on this discussion page--more than I originally planned as I'm sure you noticed. Please submit specific ideas for alterations to the current article. Until you bring some specifics to your sweeping charges of the article lacking NPOV, and what needs changing, there is nowhere to begin. I may agree with you on some things if you provide something better--afterall, I did not originally begin or write all of what is currently posted. I've certainly taken a lot of time to write on specifics on this discussion page, and of course I have much more to say.
Let's get it out in the open.
It has come to my attention that there is a dual entry under "Herbert Armstrong" (as opposed to the one under the full, proper name Herbert W. Armstrong). Of course, his name was always presented by him with the "W", and yet many people who don't know that certainly have been ending up at the "w"-less article, where your (relhistbuff) edits have reigned for more than a week now, I'm guessing-if not more. I must say, this really should have been mentioned by you to me, don't you think? Here you are, trying to show forth a "good faith", cooperative posture, meanwhile you are carrying on with all the objectionable scholarship over there without those in the wikipedia community who object to your edits having any way to find out save by chance--which is what happened (I called a friend to show him what you and I and others had written, and he accidently stumbled upon this other article). The existance of this article will of course be brought to the attention of the proper authorities here ASAP. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you must be a new user because the "entry" you mentioned is in fact a redirect to the article itself, Herbert W. Armstrong. Try Herbert Armstrong and you will see. --RelHistBuff 08:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #5

message: :It's possible that your friend had an older version under one name in his browser's cache. I can't think of anything else. Herbert Armstrong simply redirects to Herbert W. Armstrong, and the article history of the redirect don't indicate that it was ever anything but a couple of short sentences that were later converted to a redirect to Herbert W. Armstrong. -Amatulic 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break #6

message: This article was copied from: http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/mike_ep/exam/why_hwa.htm  
Originally posted by: 
By D. M. Williams 
Exit & Support Network™ 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Truth About Herbert W, Armstrong