Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 4

Weird addition: Citation needed
Someone added the italicized part to this passage:

The Plain Truth magazine continued to be published and circulated, eventually reaching a monthly press run of eight million, the vast majority of which were distributed free to medical waiting rooms, prisons and on newsstands.

Though I've never heard or read that claim, that's not the problem. It just sounds odd to me. I'm familiar with the logistics of pulling that off--think about the enormity of giving those magazines out unsolicited--at least 5-6 million copies per month as the addition suggested. Also, the Church distributed 6 million copies of the book , The United States and Britain in Prophecy (Raising the Ruins, pg 3; I believe this was done through the World Tomorrows' enormous tv ratings). Does anyone think they were able to get professionals to take in that book into waiting rooms and doctors offices in the millions, as suggested by this addition? In all likelihood people just ordered it in those numbers. And again, think also of the logistics.

It reminds me of some of the weird additions from the Anti-Armstrong POV past of this article, when claims like him fudging the middle initial to his name held sway without citations.

I think it's reasonable to expect a citation for claim like that.

04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
 * I zapped the 'weird addition', per your reasoning. We have an entire article on Plain Truth and it doesn't say anything about medical waiting rooms. EdJohnston 05:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for keeping a close watch. I think it makes sense to delete it too. P.S Thanks also for reading the entire history of the discussion page--I felt some relief when I realized you had decided to read it all. My fear was that the controversy would be too large for busy administrators to really get a full handle on it.


 * Jebbrady 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

WP:BLP
A couple of times above, Jebbrady invoked WP:BLP.

For the record, it does not apply here.--SarekOfVulcan 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been an interesting discussion to follow. SarekOfVulcan, while I agree with you that the main point of WP:BLP does not apply to the subject of this biography, it appears that the element of that policy Jebbrady was referring to stands on its own merit:


 * "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please alert us on the BLP noticeboard."


 * Wesleyk 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's much better to invoke WP:V in this case:
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
 * --SarekOfVulcan 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a discussion of what to do with the references?
and User:Jebbrady seem to have got in each other's way over cleaning up the reference formats. Could each of you state what problems you still see in how the references are set up? I see some minor technical flaws in what's just been done, and I think there are ways to consolidate multiple references to the same work (e.g. separate Notes and References, like in Georg Cantor). There must be a compromise possible on page numbers. But I'd like to know any issues of article content that the two of you have different views on, since I was baffled that fixing references could cause philosophical disagreement. If User:Preekout has opinions here he's welcome to join as well. EdJohnston 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit puzzled by it too, Ed. This is the series of events as I saw them:
 * Preekout converted the refs to the WP:CITET format you suggested above.
 * I started consolidating refs that pointed to the same page.
 * Consolidation was talked about above and endorsed by several others.
 * Consolidation continued, taking into consideration Preekout's concerns about preserving page numbers.
 * In the midst of this, other changes were made such as bringing headings into line with the MOS, removing outdated (and as a result redundant) templates, and removing commentary and book promotion.
 * Jeb reverts to his last version (with the addition of the book promotion) instead of discussing it here first.


 * Now, we could discuss how much detail should be in the reference, but first I think we should address how way out of line it was to just dump all of the work that Preekout put into converting the refs just to get rid of the consolidations that I did. I contend that Jeb must have gone back to his preferred version, just before Ed removed the bit about free copies in medical yada yada, disregarding every other editor after that point, and manually inserted the book promotion he wants in the lead. I can think of no other way for the bit about free copies to have worked it's way back in. 24.6.65.83 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Free copies and book promotion? Anyway, see my post below. Jebbrady 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Hey guys I think this is getting a bit to chaotic over formatting. I personally would like to revert to either my 17:57, 8 August 2007 edit or my 06:47, 8 August 2007 edit. Then hopefully we can come to a consensus on how to do the references HERE rather then fighting on the main page. I think we should settle how we want to do this before merging references (and loosing the page numbers) because it's a pain to look that stuff up and retype it from the history tab. However if you guys don't want the references in WP:CITET like my edits had it then that's fine as well. Like I said above (and plagiarized from some other users) I think splitting it into a references and footnotes section has merit. It's just more difficult if we merge now because the footnotes will be gone. Okay I think I've redundantly let my position be known. Pre ek  ou t  12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored your version: figured we should have the cleaned-up version live, and then we could talk about details here, as you suggest.--SarekOfVulcan 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS after looking at the Georg Cantor article I agree that it also is a good article to look to for a good balance between footnotes and references Pre ek  ou t  12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to deal in good faith, and it's difficult right now. My only concern with the references was the destruction of 20 citations, including handy paragraph references--with no explaination for taking out the latter..


 * I saw the "detailed chronology" of events, provided with bullet points. Funny, I don't recall that pattern at all. It's possible I've gotten confused and my chronolgy is off My understanding was that the editor was destroying a large chunk of work I did which was basically mandated by Jossi, and without strong reasons, then removed paragraph references for easy locating--all without first discussing it, and without building consensus. Why would he make it harder for people to check up on the authenticity of citations? Then we got some unsigned posts which were confusing, not the least because the issue was not addresses fully, but rather the focus was criticisms levelled at me personally. Sarek,I'm not going to get into a back and forth on this any further.


 * I think Preekout can give a good overview of what happened, objectively and honestly--though it's possible I've gotten confused and my chronolgy is off. If so, I apologize to out masked marauder, but please let's keep this from geting personal. My interst is keeping the article fair, and having it be intersting, with good links for further study for the readers. Jebbrady 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Thanks for responding (I removed an extra signature line that you left before your comment). I think the reference format could be improved, I am hoping that people such as yourself,, and Preekout can summarize what they want to do here so you can reinforce each other's work. I think the reverts may have happened because people tried to make too many changes at once. I can't tell you guys how to coordinate, but I suggest making smaller edits, then waiting for feedback. Either that, or lay out a plan here and wait for comments before doing anything. EdJohnston 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeb, paragraph references are hardly necessary, especially since these pages are all available online. Without the paragraph refs, the chapter citations can be combined, making it much easier to follow what's going on. No references were removed, as far as I can tell: if there were references to Chapter 1 Section 2, Chapter 1 Section 5, and Chapter 1 Section 8, they were changed to one fully-spelled out references to Chapter1, and two links to that same reference.
 * Everyone else here is pretty much working by consensus: you're the only one who keeps consistently reverting to their own text. When you do this, and then accuse us of bad faith, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, though I can't speak for the rest.--SarekOfVulcan 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'm rather amused that you edited your last comment to say "let's keep this from becoming personal", right after you accuse us of bad faith, and call an anon editor (which _you_ are, half the time) a "masked marauder". Don't you seen any inconsistency here?--SarekOfVulcan 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarek,
 * I thought it was plain that I was referring to the unsigned editor. The entire post mentioned him and no one esle. I removed the comment about bad faith to avoid confusion.  If I've offended you with that I apologize, and also for getting getting confused into thinking some vandalism was going on--I was misinformed by another editor, and acted on that information foolishly. The confusion was certainly helped by the citation deleting editor not singning post, accusing me of putting citations in to snow people into thinking the article had a large number of references, and then levelling personal attacks against me.
 * Please accept my apology on both counts.
 * As for the paragraph references, there are no pages for online versions, so how can dissenters find the actual source of the citation in the future without the paragraph references? (Preekout said some were in fact removed) It's not a huge issue, it just seems unneccessary to take away something that give the article a more upright appearance--due dilligence. As the person who put it in, after being directed to put citations in, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth to be brushed aside in the discussion :o) 208.253.158.36 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * The "masked marauder reference was made in gest. And yes, I'm trying my best to keep this from being personal with that editor, while at the same time sticking up for myself--not an easy fence to straddle. Please see my apology below aboveJebbrady 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady moved reply, so struck through direction to clarify


 * P.S. I was also misinformed, just before reverting, about how easy it would be for Peekout to bring back the template he brought. I sounded like one click and they would be back--but i think now they didn't understand my question. My apologies there also. Again, I saw twenty citations missing, was told by an editor it was vandlism, and becasue it did not seem to me that anyone had chimed in yet about the reasons for it (which still don't make sense to me--but at least they are sincere apart from an accusation from "unsinged" about me trying snowing people with superfluous citations), I reverted. Please accpet my apology for that and let's move on.  My main concern with this article is in other areas.208.253.158.36 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

(reset indent)I think one of the major things that's being overlooked in this whole issue is that Most of the references that were removed are from Printed Books that are available. The headings and location information that is being removed can probably be used quite quickly to get an actual page number from the book. I don't think we should treat them with such disdain simply because Jebbrady provided an additional way to verify the sources now with an alternate online reference. As I've said earlier, and as I've ASKED that there be a consensus before making changes to the article (which as far as I know hasn't been reached) editing references around should wait. Since user 24.6.65.83 has continued to merge references without taking the consensus thing into account I can understand why this problem has come up. Also from reading previous conversations on this page (some of which being with administrators) I think we all need to hang back and wait till the time given to Jebbrady to find sources is up before modifying them. That would probably ease a lot of the tension on this page and demonstrate good faith all around. Pre ek ou t  19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll hold off on changes to the refs for now, with the exception of breaking out the books to a separate section: that doesn't depend on the detail level of the refs. How about a Straw Poll?--SarekOfVulcan 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jeb, I'm curious as to who you consulted about this, because your contributions (as Jeb and the IP) don't show any attempt to ask for advice before you reverted. Indeed, they show you trying to "appeal to authority" by getting Jossi involved after you reverted, and Jossi declining to babysit this article.

I also wish you would stop using misleading terms like "missing citations" and "destruction of citations." These are completely false and prejudicial accusations which have been refuted by Sarek. NO CITATIONS WERE REMOVED. My posts, despite your claims, are signed - apparently you just don't understand the difference between signing a post and registering for an account.

Much of the confusion about citation formatting arises because of the referencing style; while web pages are cited, they are formatted as though from a book. Unfortunately Preekout compounded this by using the Citebook template, which allows for a space for page numbers, instead of the Citeweb template. For the purposes of citations, a single web page is usually treated in the same manner as a page from a book. No referencing style of which I'm aware makes use of section and paragraph details for individual pages; in this article, they are just padding out the reference list and make editing the article much more difficult. Again, Sarek provides a good summary of my actions and the reasoning behind them.

I forget what drew me to this article in the first place (probably some unreferenced tag), but after only a little bit of reading it became apparent that this article was heavily biased and dependent on Primary sources with a strong COI. The most prominent google finds are about the various controversies, most notably the financial stuff, yet the article showed NONE of that. Not a word. Instead that period time is devoted to his meetings with royalty and the growth of his ministry. It was then that I decided to devote attention to it. Who knew that the infighting would start with the references? I didn't expect that until I started working on the body of the article. 24.6.65.83 20:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I used the citebook template because when I searched on Amazon I noted that what was being referenced is actually A Book which means that it obviously does have page numbers. Seeing the amount of controversy over this article it isn't hard to imagine that someone will have a copy and fill that in. The fact that someone scanned a book and put it online doesn't negate the fact it was published and is a book. There's a reason the citebook template has a url section. Pre ek  ou t  20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Preekout: Cite book is appropriate here.--SarekOfVulcan 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see the reasoning, even if it does seem to be making assumptions about future edits and confusing the issue of the true source. I thought I was bringing the references into line with the MOS by consolidating down to pages, web or print, and didn't realize this would be a huge issue until I read the talk page. The poll below should settle the issue how much detail is desired, but right now it appears that my edits will be validated. 24.6.65.83 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll
How should we handle the references here?
 * Detail level:
 * 1) Down to page number, where established
 * 2) Down to section, combining refs to same section (if any)
 * 3) Down to chapter, combining refs to same chapter


 * Format:
 * 1) References: Complete book info at each ref in References section
 * 2) Footnotes/References: Complete book info in References section: inline refs go to Notes section, and point at books (Armstrong 1986 p.246, for example)


 * Chapter, notes/refs--SarekOfVulcan 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Page number (Section if page not known), notes/refs Pre ek  ou t  20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Page number (chapter if page not known), notes/refs 24.6.65.83 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Down to page number (Section if page not known)Jebbrady 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I just modified the format above, and changed Preekout's vote to match the new format. Preekout, if this is objectionable, feel free to revert.--SarekOfVulcan 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope you explained myself better then I did Pre ek  ou t  21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving page
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)


 * Sarek,
 * will archiving make it less like that adminstrators 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
 * I wish someone very neutral could read through the whole Talk page (back to May 2007) and try to boil down the issues, summarizing the main positions on everything that's not still settled. If that person could list all the unresolved issues in a total of 300 to 500 words, it would make it easier to plan what to do next, and it would be possible to archive the old stuff. EdJohnston 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Eep. That will be painful. I could go through and summarize sections, and someone else could summarize my summaries....--SarekOfVulcan 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just summarized the first two sections: looking for a way to make it more readable. Besides the formatting issues, how's that look? --SarekOfVulcan 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarek, thanks for your work. I gather that your summary consists of the title lines in the collapse boxes? I find them hard to read because of the colorl. Could you possibly collect all the title lines and add them below?  That might be easier to follow.  Thanks, EdJohnston 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed the format: this should be a bit easier to deal with. Do you think I summarized appropriately?--SarekOfVulcan 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding something about "good faith assumption is tempered with a grain of salt." 24.6.65.83 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 adminstrators, 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.


 * IP address (I don't know what to call you), your hypocrcsy detector just went off didn't it? Yes, I act unilaterally: to block out unilateral religion bashing on Wikipedia, and if that disturbs people in the Wikipedia universe, that's too bad. I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THIS ARTICLE. I had been reading Wikipedia on and off for various things and thought it was pretty good. That was back in October. It's wrong to act unilaterally against someone's legitimate, good faith concerns.
 * IP address, be forewarned: Using and citing accusations, out of context--outside a controversy section--which were leveled at this religious leader, never proven and delivered by ministers who were trying to get control of the church by many accounts--and eventually did when he died, and subsequently ripped off thousands of people of hundreds of millions of dollars--is not happening again in this article, period. The ax-grinding will be outflanked somehow--it will all work out in the end--of that I'm truly confident. P.S. If anyone doubts my assertion about the corruption in the ministry, which Armstrong was unsuccessful in fully weeding out, and the millions of dollars all but stolen from members, check out Raising the Ruins, based on internal WCG documents obtained through discovery in WCG v. PCG. Jebbrady 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

(reset indent) Interesting that you equate summarizing your comments with religion bashing. 24.6.65.83 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And interesting that he equates criticizing a religious leader with religion bashing. That's like saying that calling for Bush's impeachment is America-bashing.--SarekOfVulcan 01:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, you're equating my separate statements, not me. Am I equating "criticizing a religious" leader with religion bashing? If you can't display enough gumption to discuss the issue intelligently, than we will be moving forward into the next phase of contention very quickly. Better compare your thought process's with that of administrators. Right now, I'll take my chances with working with them, by a long shot. But thanks for sharing your thought process with everyone. Sarek, you've taken quite a turn the last  several hours, and it wasn't me that did it. It's all on you. Jebbrady 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
 * My attitude and behavior hasn't changed: I've always been focused on getting the best article here that we can. You're just interested in getting the best positive article you can, and you'll attack anyone who gets in your way.--SarekOfVulcan 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply from JebbradyJebbrady
 * Sarek your last statement makes my point for me about not messing with the postings as they are. I couldn't help but notice that the record shows me being attacked as I keep the article free of religious discrimination in the form of unsubstantiated hearsay pawned off as encyclopedia worthy editing; some snipe at me after I say such things but somehow never intelligently address that issue. After what you just said, you can imagine how I'm not going to support your efforts to manipulate the record of this page any further. I'll point back to this statement by you. And it looks like the dialog between you and I is about finished unfortunately. See my response to you latest posting below please....Jebbrady 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbbrady
 * Jeb, your idea of dialog is something like Henry Ford's choice of Model T colors. We can do whatever we want, as long as it's what you want us to do. You complain about unsubstantiated hearsay, but the record you keep referring to shows you removing substantiated events.--SarekOfVulcan 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, I'd suggest you "bulletize" even the sections that have only one post. 24.6.65.83 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Planning on it: for example, the first section had only one post, so I could summarize it very concisely.--SarekOfVulcan 02:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the formatting, actually, so that the first line contains only "Summary by Sarek" and the second line has a bullet and the summary. Basically to match the others and make clearer the separation between summarizer and summaree (sumarized?). 24.6.65.83 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Numbers
The debate about the citation is about over because I'm going to provide page numbers from hard copies, since online versions apparently aren't real to one editor. The links will stay. I've maid pleas to reason and common sense, and though the "IP address" is an intelligent person, I can't get her or him to address all my concerns, but he instead is taking shots at me personally. If you like, we can move more quickly into the next phase of contention. It seems unnecessary.
 * 69.115.162.235 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * I have no problem with online sources; I prefer them on Wikipedia, in fact, because they can be checked by anyone. What I commented on was the formatting. (godz, I hate it when I have to address wildly inaccurate interpretations of what I've written.) 24.6.65.83 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd rather have both. I find page numbers let you find the information being cited more quickly. Sometimes the find command isn't the best on web pages. Especially if it's an abstract concept or the author is using uncommon words to describe the concept (or even worse common ones in a long document). With that in mind I don't think anyone will find it surprising that I firmly endorse the inclusion of page numbers :) Plus it makes articles look like the research done was more then a google search. sigh  Pre ek  ou t


 * What's truly amazing is that Jeb is actually the one who has stated he is "not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry. The web is full of vitriol and unsubstantiated slander on the man, haven't you noticed?" Apparently web sources are fine as long as they align with his POV. Amazing. 24.6.65.83 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Edjohnson's request for a summary of the controversy
Dear Edjohnson,

Here's a posting that drifted toward the middle of the page due to the flurry of activity, and garnered little comment. It shows how it all boils down to the Time quote, and reprints the quote for your review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebbrady (talk • contribs)

Time magazine quote and set-up
In order to kick off some dialog with the editors (one in particular)--a little good faith debate--let's focus on the only hotly contested issue on this page right now--the only issue of contention I've had with the editor in question: the Time magazine obituary and the way it was set up.

(For those who haven't, please read the posting entitled "Collecting Tithes and the Charlatan angle" to get some valuable, factual context.)

Here's the Time quote (added to the article July 20th I believe):

"TIME Magazine, a mainstream weekly in the United States, referred to Armstrong's marriage and divorce in harsh terms both in announcing the filing,[10] and in his obituary.[11]


 * "In both items, TIME referred to Armstrong as "autocratic" and in the obituary, expanded their criticism, summing up his legacy in the harshest terms and disregarding any good works in his lifetime of ministry:


 * ...Armstrong taught that Christians should deny the Trinity, shun medical care (though he used it as his own health deteriorated) and that remarried members should divorce their second spouses and rejoin their first (though he repealed that dictum in 1976 and a year later married a divorcée). Fanatically loyal members, many of them poor, tithed as much as $75 million a year to his church.[11]"

Now, let's look at two policies found on the WP:V page, emphasis mine:


 * 1) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."


 * 2) "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Considering policy #2, the additions in question were obviously insinuating in both the set up of the Time quote, and in theTime quote itself, that Armstrong was not what he said he was: he received medical care instead of divine healing, had a messy divorce and, most serious, was abusing his membership financially. I think we can agree that these are exceptional claims in any context, by any standard. So, noting the policy just cited, and the posting "Collecting Tithes and the Charlatan angle", I have to ask this: Is an obituary of a few dozen words from Time magazine, obscurely set amongst several other obits and obviously issued with little or no editorial oversite, is that a source one would call "exceptional"?

As I've argued before, a religious leader is either a charlatan or sincere--there is no in-between. If we go with the former, the proof must be clear and convincing, or it ends up looking like religion bashing--after all, Armstrong's beliefs are a religion for many people--this page is the equivalent of the articles on Islam and Hinduism etc. The strong appearance of religious discrimination is something that we can all agree on is not good for Wikipedia.

So, with the burden of proof falling where it must, and the "exceptional" implications of the Time quote, is the Time obituary an "exceptional" source?

Jebbrady 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady


 * Well, I'm not Lisa, but changing church rules so that he could re-marry seems worthy of inclusion to me. The medical care, not so much -- unless there were occasions in the past where he affirmatively took action to prevent others from receiving health care, as in the Lisa McPherson/Scientology case.


 * Negative claims are not automatically exceptional. --SarekOfVulcan 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

From 208.253.158.36 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Well, I welcome a good debate, though it's not always easy--thanks for the reply. My reply to "Negative claims are not automatically exceptional" is simply that no one said it was "automatically exceptional" just because it was negative. I think if I did that it would be insulting everyone's intelligence here don't you? Here's the the thing my friend: charging a person with what obviously amounts to hypocrisy and deceit whose life was devoted to a biblically based code of ethics and morality, is absolutely exceptional, especially in light of the fact that the person was and still is respected by so many--especially in his home community--and, perhaps most important, it's exceptional considering the allegations are made against a man who represents a religion in of itself.

I have to call you out a little on something: you couched his allegedly received medical treatment as if it definitely happened. Do you realize there has been a longstanding controversy since the 1970'S about the veracity of all the allegations in question? We also must consider contradictory evidence: people who were around him the most deny that he received treatment beyond what he taught was acceptable. What about the details of the marriage? Produce the evidence and we can talk about whether it's useful and how it might be used to better the article. Otherwise, don't you agree that it just might be best dealt with in a section entitled "controversy", as I had proposed? I've seen little enthusiasm for this, to my amazement.

We have to prove he was a charlatan with clear, irrefutable evidence, addressing the issue directly, openly, and honestly on this page, or else treat it as a controversy to be examined objectively and rationally in a special section of the article. The appearance of religion bashing need to end with this article, and I believe the Wikipdeia staff will support my efforts in this all the way.

And, if no conclusion can be determined either way as to what really happened, as I suspect from my own investigation of the varied sources both in favor and hostile to Armstrong, doesn't it make sense to put all of this in a section entitled "controversy"?

Jebbrady 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady