Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)/Archive 1

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: '''do not move as proposed. Instead move The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) to The World Tomorrow'''. The consensus of this discussion is that there is no primary topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television) → The World Tomorrow – Presently The World Tomorrow redirects to World Tomorrow by Assange. Assange's program was called World Tomorrow, not The World Tomorrow, whereas this long-running radio and television show is actually called The World Tomorrow and is the primary use for The World Tomorrow and has great prominence over Asange's show that doesn't have the definit article. Another important distinction. Asange show was 12 episodes running from 17 April to 3 July 2012, and was scrapped. So a minimal run of less than 3 months. The proper The World Tomorrow has been going on since 1934 and is heard by huge number of listeners and attended by a huge number of TV viewers. Assange program can be served by a disambiguation on top of this page for the religious broadcasts werldwayd (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support restore of redirect of The World Tomorrow to The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) as before this edit. Or better still, move The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) over The World Tomorrow. The Armstrong WCOG radio program certainly has massive prominence over Assange but isn't a clear primary, since the socialist-Christian magazine 1918-1934 has a surprisingly large showing in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Move The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) to The World Tomorrow - Just to note, the move of the disambig to the primary name would be better than the cut/paste of content (cut/paste conceals attribution history). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After further consideration of the valuable comments of the two colleagues above, I, as the original propser of the move, am now more convinced that they are making a valid point and I support renderring The World Tomorrow as the main disambiguation. This would be the best course without given prominence to the neither radio/Tv religious show, nor the magazine nor the Assange series. werldwayd (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as originally proposed the disambiguation page should be restored to its location prior to the 2012 rename, which is the suggested destination of this request nomination. So move The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) to The World Tomorrow -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion(s) about archived episodes
I have tagged the "Archived episodes" section of this article as a possible hoax, as this content has been repeatedly added while referencing a source which appears to have nothing to do with the assertions made. Also, there are WP:BLP concerns as to what exactly Garner Ted Aukerman's connection to the topic is and I couldn't find any solid link between him and Armstrongism besides the similarity of name between he and G.T. Armstrong, merely references to a stuntman cousin of Scott Aukerman who goes by this name. Roberticus  talk  21:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If anybody presents a reliable source attesting to the content, or can explain how this seemingly unrelated source is relevant to the claims made in the section, I do not oppose removal of said tag... Roberticus  talk  21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

These are the citation links necessary to validate the section that should be inserted. The links confirm the section related to Senator Robert Dole and the Congress archive World Tomorrow holdings.
 * https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/9770.19.0.0/religion/wcg/us
 * http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/religion/mptv.html
 * http://www.herbert-w-armstrong.com/telecast.html
 * http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/indexVideo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.211.3 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, at least the first link you provide gives a source for some of the claims; however, I'm not sure that this publication would be considered a reliable source as it's biased pro-Armstrongism and may not have the fact-checking or editorial control generally expected of sources. Also, there is no mention at all of Garner Ted Aukerman. The Library of Congress link provides no add'l confirmation. The final two prove that archived episodes exist online, and that Sadat was interviewed at one time, but I couldn't find any help on the claims regarding Bob Dole and again, nothing about G.T. Aukerman... Roberticus  talk  14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The congress library link proves the holdings or archive episodes of world tomorrow with herbert armstrong and garner armstrong are among their archives, while the first link proves doles involvement with the preservation. Any white house records would prove the dinner with Sadat and guest list. Dole was the Senate Agriculture chair during the timeframe mentioned. These are the links to the congress holdings and archived epidodes of ted armstrong which edited from the library holdings and put on tv as reruns. And a link to aukerman already exists among the articles citations. Found a couple more that details the aukerman dole relationship. Aukerman is also a cousin of Robert Downey, Jr., and the Imdb photo links prove the aukerman armstrongism connection. This articles archived episodes section presents a facisating to read about the incredible events and people involved in this television program preservtion and discovery among the US congress archives. I also found some links to the edited rerun congress tapes of herbert armstrong and the walk tv cable weekly schedule clearly shows both garner ted armstong and the world tomorrow shows air back to back every saturday morning.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/religion/mptv.html

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1284860

https://plus.google.com/+GARNERTEDAUKERMAN/about

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm795082496/nm4137167?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_81

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm140771072/nm4137167?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_43

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000327/board/nest/231800850?p=2

https://m.yutube.com/watch?v=lu02cjN8Njc

https://vimeo.com/37827769

https://vimeo.com/38265023

https://www.denveropenmedia.org/shows/world-tomorrow-are-you-being-judged

https://www.denveropenmedia.org/shows/world-tomorrow-gospel-sign

www.theworldtomorrow.tv

www.thewalktv.files.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.55.226 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed the tag to be one which calls for better reliable sources, but unfortunately most/all of what you offer above are either primary sources (yes the shows exist on some video sharing sites), from sites like imdb (which like Wikipedia anyone can edit so not good) or, for the source which currently is cited re: the section's claims, are actually from the comments section of an article which mentions G.T. Armstrong and the show, but the article itself does not back up the claims regarding Aukerman. I never could find anything from the Library of Congress site either which verifies inclusion of The World Tomorrow. If no better sourcing can be found, the content could very well be removed by someone else down the road... Roberticus  talk  13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk about grasping at straws to attempt to delete an entire article section. Roberticus has made numerous edits to this article over the years to the detriment of the article. In his claim above he states "I never could find anything from the Library of Congress site either which verifies inclusion of "The World Tomorrow".

Well, Roberticus needs to do a little better reading. The above links need to be included as citations for the article section in dispute. Failure to include the links smacks of continued vandelism to the article and this particular section.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/religion/mptv.html

United States Library of Congress Description of Collections

Videos and Sound Recordings: Because the collection is not cataloged by subject for the most part, it is not possible to provide detailed information about religion-related holdings of films and videotapes. Consultation with reference staff is recommended to find needed materials. The collection is strong in materials submitted to the Library for copyright, and so includes a reasonably complete collection of religious-themed feature films made and/or distributed in the United States, ranging from traditional Biblical epics (e.g. The Ten Commandments, 1956; the 1925 silent version of Ben-Hur) to films offering social comment on religion (Elmer Gantry, 1960) to more contemporary works (The Last Temptation of Christ, 1989; The Rapture, 1992; Little Buddha, 1993). There may also be found dramatizations of religious literature, e.g. the 1991 production of the Mahabharata by Peter Brooks. Television programs in the collection include documentaries (e.g. The Long Search, a 1978 BBC/Time-Life production examining the major world religions), and evangelistic programs such as The World Tomorrow (from the Worldwide Church of God, featuring Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong; Library of Congress holdings run from 1978 to 1983.

(Actually the holdings run from 1972 to 1994).


 * I made four edits over the course of a week last April, and stand by them. I do acknowledge that the Library of Congress does have a relevant bit verify its inclusion in the collection, therefore I dropped any challenge to that portion of the section. However, there is still nothing usable attesting to the connection of Garner Ted Aukerman to the subject at all, just a comment to a web article which doesn't mention him! In fact, more unsourced content has been since added regarding Aukerman. I plan to once again remove the Aukerman related content as there is still no  reliable sourcing supporitng the claims... Roberticus   talk  14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the imdb sourcing does include some photos indicating a connection to Armstrongism, but it doesn't establish the claims in the article, and either way is not usable per WP:CITEIMDB Roberticus  talk  14:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Senator mentioned
After reviewing the content, I see that the mention that "Senator Bob Dole ordered the preservation of all copies" was unsourced. Without that link, all further mentions of Dole lost any context or reason to even be in the article. Also, the claim of the program being the only one of a religious nature in the archives was original research. After pruning the unsourced, lacking context, and WP:NOR statements in the section, the only remaining supported statement is that the archive exists. I've now moved that remaining mention into being a sub-section of the "Format" section, as it fitx in that context. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Roberticus edit history displays a clear person biased history of disruptive editing to this article and numerous ARMSTRONGISM related Wikipedia articles. Roberticus disruptive editing of these related Wikipedia articles has taken place for several years.


 * The following link above shows the Aukerman, Dole, World Tomorrow connection, but it has been ignored by Barek/Roberticus/C.Fred:
 * http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1284860
 * These links prove the Dole Loc World Tomorrow preservation:
 * http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Video/index.html
 * https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19
 * http://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2012/08/hwa-films-preserved-forever-in-library.html?m=1
 * https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.201.128 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on my talk page, continued personal attacks are only likely to result in additional blocks of your IPs. Please remain WP:CIVIL in discussions.
 * As to the sources mentioned; if Dole had dinner with Aukerman is irrelevant - the article is about The World Tomorrow, not tangential subject matter and anecdotes. Even if it were somehow relevant, the EE-times article never mentions it - the mention of Dole only happens in the comments, which fails WP:RS.
 * As to the archiving, the article already states that the material was placed into the Library of Congress archives; that fact is well sourced and not in question, it was never removed from the article. As to Dole's connection to that event - most of the ones you list fail WP:RS. The only one which is borderline would be The Philadelphia Trumpet, which I should point out was not in the article at the time that I removed the unsourced claims from the article. Although the original text in the article was that "Senator Bob Dole ordered the preservation ...", while The Trumpet states "It was in 1978 during his tenure as Kansas senator that Mr. Dole made the request for the preservation of episodes of The World Tomorrow. The request was approved ...", so if community consensus supports adding the mention, it should be rephrased to match the source material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A handful of friends/quote unquote editors - run and rule Wikipedia. Barek contacted his buddy to punish or as they call it temp blocking someone who does not agree with their disruptive edits which they falsely label personal attacks. If you disagree with a Wikipedia super editor, that super editor will immediately private message one of his super editor pals and the buddy will block any newcomer. No wonder Wikipedia is suffering and under current public smear as being run by a handful of 90 percent male super editor egotists. Library of Congress source: The World Tomorrow preservation in national archives

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z0whAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA2745&lpg=PA2745&dq=Congress+preserving+library+herbert+w+armstrong&source=bl&ots=vOUvs25Vzh&sig=R1gJS6-NCbRxCW-y37J-XgldlrY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSp73I2LfMAhVKu4MKHcAwAOgQ6AEINDAJ#v=onepage&q=Congress%20preserving%20library%20herbert%20w%20armstrong&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.231.89 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All that link shows is that the recordings are in the Film and Television archives of the United States Library of Congress - a fact that is already stated in the article, and which was never removed from the article.
 * As to your blathering rant - it is so far detached from reality, I don't really see a point in responding to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then why did you just respond?? A handful of Bickering blathering predominantly male so called super wiki editors like you and your pals run and rule your private little cyberspace club called Wikipedia. Will you, now at this time restore the section referencing Senator Bob Doles preservation of The World Tomorrow in the Libriary of Congress archives, which you and your buddies destructively edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.199.111 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Decline of Wikipedia MIT technology review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.199.111 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Considering my newcomer experience with Barek and his alter egos with this particular article, the following piece of research on The decline of Wikipedia was spot on correct! The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade. And yet every month 10 billion pages are viewed on the English version of Wikipedia alone. When a major news event takes place, such as the Boston Marathon bombings, complex, widely sourced entries spring up within hours and evolve by the minute. Because there is no other free information source like it, many online services rely on Wikipedia. Look something up on Google or ask Siri a question on your iPhone, and you’ll often get back tidbits of information pulled from the encyclopedia and delivered as straight-up facts.

Yet Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. Those participants left seem incapable of fixing the flaws that keep Wikipedia from becoming a high-quality encyclopedia by any standard, including the project’s own. Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-­ranking quality scores.

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.Then


 * There is no point in restoring content that fails WP:RS. Your conspiracy theories are laughable and utterly absurd. If you can't stick to discussing content and can only rant about some bizarre imagined cabal, then I don't see a point in replying further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, why do you KEEP continuing replying further, Barek? Because you are a "super" editor and therefore you MUST have it your way without having any newcomers usurp your authority, and you definitely must always have the last word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.199.111 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

COI template
ScrapIron,

Also please explain the COI template by beginning a talk as required by Wikipedia rules: Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.225.156 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When an IP editor (you) claims to be in contact with the producers of the show, is any more reason for flagging the article for editors to be on the alert for COI edits needed? —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Scrap iron placed the notice, and Scrapiron ONLY was to begin a talk. He has not. We are the producers. We are not sabataging or vandalizing this article which tends to point new viewers of our church sponsored television and radio program toward our telecast, as has been falsely suggested many times by some here. As to our present host, we run what we call classics of past hosts mainly Herbert. We have the entire collection of tapes Bob Doles preserved into the archives beginning in 1977. Dole helped us get the copies done at the senate price rate, which saved us over 18 thousand dollars to have the collection copied. As to Mr. Aukerman, who discovered the collection by happenstance, we have asked him to host for many years but he has turned us down. Thank you for honoring our reqest to amend the article and delete Mr. Aukerma's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.225.156 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no clause that requires "Scrapiron ONLY was to begin a talk". While recommended that they should start the discussion, any editor is free to begin a discussion about the tag.
 * That said - after a quick scan through the current version of the article, I don't see any obviously non-neutral content in its current form (although it has had that issue periodically in the past). If no specific NPOV issues needing cleanup are identified in a timely manner (within the next few days), then I would support removing the tag. It's intended to identify cleanup as being currently needed, not to act as a badge identifying articles that have had COI edits done to it in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the writeup at COI, the tag should only be used when there are cleanup issues that are "direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or by a person with a close connection to the subject". As I mentioned above, I couldn't find any obvious issues from an initial scan through the article. As no further clarification has been provided, I'll go ahead and remove the tag.
 * If the issues do still remain and I overlooked them, please feel free to restore the tag - but also please clarify in which sections of the article is the cleanup still believed to be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016
2004 to present Garner Aukerman serves as producer. FastNLoud (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud

FastNLoud (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)k
 * Unfortunately, IMDb does not meet Wikipedia's requirements to be a reliable source. Do you have another published source available to help confirm the information? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Earlier discussions on this article talk page centered on the the involvement of Garner Aukman. Aukman's name is listed in the end credits to many of the online videos I have watched, available on YouTube and many other online sources. Wikipedia would need to remove the film and television credits for every actor, director, producer with Wikipedia pages because their Wikipedia pages lift and copy their credits directly off the Internet Movie Database, IMDb.com, because they are vetted as a sound reliable source. FastNLoud (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud
 * Prior edits, by others claiming to be the producers of the program, have attempted a couple times to remove all mention of Garner Ted Aukerman from the article talk page, claiming "remove all mentions of Aukerman from this conversation. He is not affiliated with the subject. He is employed by Team Downey". Given the conflicting claims, we need a reliable source that can confirm one way or the other - and IMDb does not meet the threshold of being a reliable source - it's even called out specifically within Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline in the subsection for #Questionable and self-published sources as not being a reliable source. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up for discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you have a better source available, that would resolve the question. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the rapid response this holiday weekend. Reading the reviews talk and history you have been accused of vandalizing the article and they suggest you have a close personal relationship to the subject.  The rapid fire response on a holiday would suggest to most the accusations about your selective editing of this content, is true.  To avoid further conflicts of interest consider removing yourself fro this Wikipedia subject matter.  And, FYI, producers and directors in Hollywood wear many different hats and work on numerous projects during their careers.  Most handle many projects simultaneously.  A producer credit in the end credits of a TV show, should suffice as a Wikipedia source.  FastNLoud (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud
 * No COI exists, and never has existed. My edit history shows I have been online much of the day editing dozens of other articles, and my watchlist shows me when anyone else edits any of the thousands of pages I have on my watchlist. Likewise, the moment I login I get a big notice at the top of the screen if my user talk page has been edited.
 * As to the content - you have been told about the issues of using IMDb and the need for a reliable source. As I said, feel free to bring it up for discussion at the noticeboard I mentioned - but at this point, due to conflicting claims, a verifiable reliable source is going to be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the above discussion from my talk page over to the relevant section of this article talk page so as to keep the discussion in a single place, making the discussion easier to follow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Barek, your talk page indicates you have many Wikipedia alter egos. Do you use these alter Wikipedia identities to show a consensus of support for your edits? It's strange no edits were made to this page since mid May, and now on Labor Day, this article is all the sudden grand central high traffic for Wikipedia editors. Editor WERLDWYD made 3 consecutive edits today. Deleting large sections of any article content, such as the Bob Dole connection, and blanking other verifiable source material does not change the fact Dole was involved in the preservation, or the current and past program hosts and producers. And FYI you do have a serious COI: The user name Werldwyd is a play on WORLDWIDE, direct affiliation of THE WORLD TOMORROW show and their Church of God! Looks like in your face sock puppets going on with this article. FastNLoud (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud
 * I have never hidden the fact that I have one (and only one) secondary account which I have used in the past; however, a quick glance at Special:Contributions/Barek-public shows I last used it in 2013. Any accusation of additional sockpuppets are false - if you feel otherwise, feel free to make a report at WP:SPI. I have no connection to any other editors on this article or talk page. I can only guess at their involvement. They likely either already had the page on their own watchlists, or were drawn here by your semi-protected edit request, which flags this page for other editors to respond and/or review the article themselves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If Aukerman asked you to remove his name and affiliation from this article, why have you not done so? The name needs to be removed from the article its entirety, which includes this talk page and the history page. If Robert Downey, Jr., and Garner Aukerman asked you as an administrator to remove their names, do it. The page history suggests Barek, Roberticus, C.Fred and Werldwayd have assumed ownership and hijacked this article. They together account for having contributed to 90 percent of the edits over several years. Aukerman's name should be deleted from this talk page conversation if what you claim is true. FastNLoud (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud
 * The material has not been removed because the mention of the name is directly relevant to past discussions about article content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Do the useful editing Barek. Upload a similar title card as found at the Assa gr copyright infringement World Tomorrow Wikipedia article. His title card upload would be identical. No copyright issues exist. And begin removing all credits for all actors directors and producers with Wikiledia pages. Wikipedia editors have lifted copied and pasted all those films and TV credits from Intrrnet Movie Database, IMDb.com you say is an invalid source. Remove the Assange Wikioedia copied program credits listings and the IMDb link at that page too. Stop practicing sockpuppetry and your selective destructive biased editing and cronisism. FastNLoud (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud

Request: Upload Armstrong World Tomorrow title card using identical parimaters as used by Wikipedia for the Assange World Tomorrow title card Wikipedia article. And upload change: ARCHIVED EPISODES Copies of The World Tomorrow broadcast episodes from 1978 to 1983 are held in the Film and Television archives of the United States Library of Congress.[9] Former United States Senator Bob Dole ordered the preservation of The World Tomorrow copies into the Library of Congress collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNLoud (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot upload a document that I do not posses. To upload it yourself, follow the link that was provided earlier to WP:Files for upload. As has been explained by multiple editors in the past: because the image is from a copyrighted program, it's not a "free" image, and will need to be uploaded appropriately to acknowledge that copyright and to label it as "fair use" to illustrate the article (or if there's evidence that the show producers have released the image to be free of copyright, see WP:Requesting copyright permission for how to submit that evidence).
 * The Trumpet source was not in the article at the time that the content was removed: but as I pointed out previously, even with that source it doesn't support the wording that keeps getting insisted upon. While the Trumpet headline says "ordered", if you read the actual article it states that he "requested" archiving, which was then approved by an unnamed person or group. If the content were to be added, it would need to reflect what is actually stated in the article. There's also question on if someone making a request which was approved by an unnamed someone else is encyclopedic content, or if it's tangentially related trivia. I believe an RFC would be needed to establish consensus on that point - if requested, I can create one of those. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop monkeying around with us already, there is no "unnamed someone else". Senators and Congressmen can place anything they consider of archival value into to library for their own PERSONAL or public use. DOLE ORDERED THE PRESERVATION FOR HIMSELF AS A SENATOR. Let's stop with the game playing and hula hoop dancing. How many "hoops" and barricades dos you want to put up here to play your games with Barek? The Trumpet source was in fact referenced and you claimed it not a valid source here and at the Garner Ted ARMSTRONG Wikipedia page you also destructively edited with the same content and Trumpet article reference. You upload the title card, and YOU correct the destructive edits YOU made. Then move on to another article and stay away from this one as it is clear to all you've personally hijacked this article and related subject matter for many years YOU Assumed personally editorial ownership. And next time Labor Day rolls around try A LITTLE OUT DOOR activity instead of living in cyberspace. Stop playing editorial GOD playing games and torturing this church and its television show outreach. We are retired senior citizens, 85 and 84 years young doing our best to learn and keep up with Internet technology and it's rapid daily changes. Bob Dole is my age too. Our great grandkids fixed this article once and you and you cronies have sabotaged it FastNLoud (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud
 * You have been provided the relevant links. You have had Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines explained repeatedly. Your use talk page has a link to the teahouse to get further assistance. If you choose to ignore all that and instead rant about imagined conspiracies and make continued misrepresentations, so be it. As they say, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Barek protected this article so that he and and a handful of his stable can edit the article and make changes or updates.  So now only those handful of long established administrator level Wikipedia editors can make the simple changes to the article he claims are so easy to make.  Well than why won't he make them?  Because he is personally biased to the content of the article and he would rather delete the article in its entirety or as he has done, for many years delete remove and suppress revelant facts of interest about the show.  Stop with your horseshit Barek, drink and swallow.  Barek removed the Trumpet article reference link confirming the Dole preservation claiming it was not supportive.  He then destructively did so at the Garner Ted Armstrong Wikipedia page claiming the same reason.  Now, only Barek can replace the content he personally removed.  Barek and his alter ego sock puppets which he uses to support his edits, are outed and he is completely full of horseshit having shit all over this and related content for these many years.  How the water tasting, Barek?  The water is hot and your horse is up to its bridle and neck in it.  Do what you will with your shitting all over your personal stable here, we are through.   Wikipedia administration needs to block you, and provide a real live editor to clean out your stable and shovel your shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNLoud (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No conspiracy as falsely suggested by user Barek, only facts concerning his disruptive edits. Barek and his Wikipedia pals placed a protection template over the article so that only he can make and approve future edits to this page. Barek blanked an entire section pertaining to the programs preservation by Senator Bob Dole. Yes, that is a FACT, not a conspiracy. Barek DELETED the entire section, and only reluctantly added a small passage about the Library of Congress collection. Barek then went to the Garner Ted Armstrong Wikipedia page and deleted the same section of information pertaining to Bob Dole. These sections were approved by other editors and well sourced and included on this article for well over one year before Barek deleted them. He now denies accepting another source for the Dole content because he argues he personally needs the name of some "unknown other person" who accepted the package of program tapes at the Library of Congress Dole ordered preserved! Perhaps we can track down the name of the shipping clerk who worked in receiving and shipping at the Library of Congress in 1978 when they began receiving the tapes in the mail! Or, maybe we can get the name of the mailman who delivered them from the Post Office to satisfy Barek. The FACT is Barek does not personally want the preservation information section mentioning Senator Bob Dole included. Maybe he is a former church member, or perhaps even Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or simply of some other religious background besides this church and its long running sponsored program. The program has been on the air for so long, one of the title cards previously uploaded and APPROVED under fair use, was in BLACK and WHITE dating back 50 years. Theses title card images are in the public domain and can be easily found with any cursory Google image search. The other title cards that were later deemed not acceptable and deleted were from the classic episodes hosted by Herbert W. Armstrong from the early 1980"s and one of more recent years 2004 to present. Now, even though these episodes were uploaded under the fair use template used by many other well known sitcoms and television shows with Wikipedia pages, AND uploaded identically as the infringing Julian Assange World Tomorrow Wikipedia page, they were deleted citing copyright concerns, while the Assange World Tomorrow page title card photos remain intact.  Talk about your double standard.  Along the lines of the Assange World Tomorrow Wikipedia page:  Before any of his programs aired on RT television (and they only aired on RT) Assange and his production company were forced to change their planned name from THE WORLD TOMORROW, to THE JULIAN ASSANGE SHOW, because of the conflict with this long running program title of the same name, and trademark and copyright issues. However, no editor has updated this on the Assange Wikipedia page as it is still titled the World Tomorrow, the title card remains, AND although Imdb.com has been disavowed as a credible Wikipedia source, the Assange page Imdb.com reference link remains intact and unchanged. Now take a look at the Julian Assange Wikipedia World Tomorrow page. Notice how pristine and clean it appears to the eye. Very well done. While this page looks horrible in its layout by comparison. One would think all these super editors like Barek and his pals who have fought so hard for so many years, as he is fighting now to control the editorial content of this page, well one would think he would improve its appearance since he spends so much of his time editing and improving Wikipedia pages and their source content. Look at any television show page you can think of here on Wikipedia, and compare it to this page. Wow, how nicely laid out all the others are, while this page looks like shit by comparison. Now compare those to any Wikipedia porn star page. Look at that well sourced plethora of content! Incredible that these Wikipedia editors can spend so much of their time beautifying and adding so much content to a wretched porn stars Wikipedia page, while they ignore so many other pages that desperately need editorial attention and upgrading.

Barek recently changed the dates of the Bob Dole Library of Congress collection to reflect the holdings only date from 1978 to 1983. Barek removed the updated citation reference links some time ago when he deleted the entire section mentioned which prove the Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong holdings actually run from 1972 to 1986. However those links are still included near the middle of this talk page. And, the FACT is the holdings run from 1972 through 1994. While GTA and HWA were the hosts from 1972 till 1986, other 4 hosts did the show until its initially cancellation till 1994. If anyone would click on the links provided above, which used to be included in the deleted section, they will take you to the archives where anyone can watch any of the half hour programs. The beginning of each broadcast features a countdown timer with the production number, date, and show title. Once again, this link was deleted as not useful or relevant to the article, and just this past week Barek has tried to downplay the archival holdings to only 5 years, with the recent change he made. The Library of Congress holdings comprise 22 years from 1972 to 1994. And, Senator Bob Dole ORDERED them, lets just say "requested" them to satisfy Barek for argument sake, included and preserved.

Barek, one could gladly make the necessary changes to restore the section you blanked, and upload the title card photos once again. But one cannot because as you know, the page is blocked with a protection template.

Archived episodes
Copies of The World Tomorrow broadcast episodes from 1972 to 1986 are held in the Film and Television archives of the United States Library of Congress.[9]. http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Video/index.html https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu02cjN8Njc  This collection includes the complete set of Garner Ted Armstrong episodes from 1972 through 1978 and all the of 144 World Tomorrow telecasts hosted by Herbert W. Armstrong produced by Ambassador College, Pasadena, California from 1978-1986. https://vimeo.com/37827769 https://vimeo.com/38265023  http://www.herbert-w-armstrong.com/telecast.html   The collection was entered into the Library of Congress at the request of United States Senator Bob Dole. https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19

Request to Wikipedia Administration to override Barek blockade and update this very well sourced change to reflect this section truthfully and 100 percent accurately which would reinstate the inclusion of Senator Bob Dole's contribution to the shows preservation. This information was removed in an attempt to suppress it, by editor Barek for reasons unknown, and to which he has failed to provide a valid, unbiased and sufficient explanation. Please also lift the block so that title card photos can be uploaded a third time and reinstated a third time, in accordance with Wikipedia standards. All previous requests to Wikipedia for the title cards to be reinstated -- by those responsible for their deletion -- using the proper guidelines, have been ignored.

Wikipedia admins concerned at all with copyright and trademark violation issues should be interested in the fact the Wikipedia page for the Julian Assange ill advised plan to initially call his short lived interview series THE WORLD TOMORROW, never materialized and NEVER aired anywhere in any region, under that banner. Producers from this articles Church of God long runnning television program of the same name contacted Assange, his New York City production company attorney, and Journeyman pictures just prior to thier planned airdate on Russian TV network, RT. An agreement was struck and their program NEVER AIRED as the WORLD TOMORROW. Assange simply changed the name to THE JULIAN ASSANGE SHOW. However, the Wikipedia page for the Assange program has failed to make this update, and remove the conflicting World Tomorrow title from his page and the Wikipedia World Tomorrow disambiguation page.

User Barek appears heavily involved in blocking all attempts to right this wrong, and make the simple necessary changes to reflect the Assange page in a truthful and accurate manner.

Wikipedia has been considered by most observers and critics to be an unreliable source of information.

Thank you for your time and assistance.74.93.248.93 (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)TWT


 * The website for the US Library of Congress states on its website: "programs such as The World Tomorrow (from the Worldwide Church of God, featuring Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong; Library of Congress holdings run from 1978 to 1983)" (that's a direct quote, see section "Description of Collections" at US Library of Congress website) - that is where the dates 78 to 83 are originating. If they have it wrong, ask them to update that page. Links to vimeo, youtube, and contents on personal web hosting sites do not over-ride what the US Library of Congress states themselves. Please, if you have contact numbers or emails over there, ask them to update the information on their website. I'll be more than happy to update Wikipedia to reflect the archive dates if they get changed on the US Library of Congress website.


 * For the title card, as I have stated in the past, if you can upload one appropriately, I can then assist inserting it into the article. The page being protected does not prevent uploading. First, it's important NOT to upload it to the Commons (where it has been uploaded in the past), that is a sister website to Wikipedia, and they have more stringent rules on copyright, for example, "Fair Use" of copyrighted content is not accepted over there - that is why prior uploads to Commons have been deleted by their admins.


 * To upload, you were previously supplied with a link to WP:Files for upload and asked to follow the menus. I'll make it even simpler: if you have a logged-in account, from the prior link provided you can reach the File Upload Wizard, fill out the fields, in section 3 select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." - in the box that comes up, say it's for use at "The World Tomorrow (radio and television)", and select the option for "This is the official cover art of a work.", select the drop-down to say it's the "Title screen of a TV program" and fill in the remaining fields, then click "Upload".
 * If you get a message in that process saying you are unable to upload the image directly over there, or you find it too convoluted to follow; but you already have a screenshot saved somewhere on the web that someone else can upload for you, one of the menu paths would also get you to the request form at this link; in the fields provided, provide the URL, say it is for fair-use, list the article where it is to be used, and any other requested data on that form - then save.


 * As I said, once an image is uploaded correctly, I can assist with inserting it into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The dates are not revelant. This appeal is to Wikipedia Administration to reinstate the Dole preservation history Barek wiped out, and still does not want to discuss or reinstate. Please reinstate it as follows. The dates are not even necessary. Barek has blocked this article so that only he can edit it. We will upload the title cards, and we do not need the assistance of Barek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.192.137 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse my not responding to continued redundant demands to be failure to discuss. I have addressed it (above) several times, as have others. I suggested an WP:RfC (that I offered to start upon request) to get input from additional editors on the concerns raised - that was met with a repeat of the demands and a refusal to accept the offer. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ARCHIVED EPISODES
Copies of The World Tomorrow broadcast episodes featuring Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong are held in the Film and Television archives of the United States Library of Congress.[9]. The copies were placed into the Library of Congress archival holdings at the request of United States Senator Bob Dole. https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.219.221 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules on Plagerizing re. Barek copy and paste verbatim of Archive Section:

Plagerizing and close paraphrasing World Tomorrow archive section
Please correct the mistake you made when you copied and pasted this section directly from the Library of Congress website, in accordance with Wikipedia plagerism rules. Update and add the Dole reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.37.22 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing was plagiarized. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take your concerns to WP:CP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at the talk page. Other editors claim you use the tools to protect your edits and block other who challenge you.

Why don't you just fix this issue, reinsert the above reworded paraphrase which includes the Dole reference, and then move on. The reinsertion of the Bob Dole preservation to the Library of Congress is the main issue we have with you sir. Not the dates! Do you get it? Of course you do, you're a smart fella but you're dancing all around the issue by talking about dates of inclusion deliberately not discussing WHO included them. BOB DOLE. Why are you so adamantly opposed to anyone learning Senator Dole put these TV programs in the Library of Congress. And they are not "copies". They are the MASTER three quarter inch studio broadcast tapes! They were then converted by the Library of Congress duplication office to digital beta. Every episode from 1972 - 1994. But as I said the years. The dates do not matter. The fact a US senator put them into the collection, does.

Somebody fix this problem. Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.37.22 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You accused me of plagiarism, and the only material I copied from the US Library of Congress was the dates. I was simply responding to your accusation.
 * As to the Dole mention, the Trumpet source states "Mr. Dole made the request for the preservation of episodes of The World Tomorrow. The request was approved ..." Given that you've now dropped the demand for the article to state "Dole ordered" and dropped the demands to re-add the secondary unsourced material about dinners at the white house, I'll go ahead and re-add the Dole mention. There were other concerns brought up about the Trumpet source by others; but not brought up again in a while now, so I'll assume those objections were dropped at this point unless brought up again by someone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Old version at Project Gutenberg
At Project Gutenberg there is a page that is a direct copy from Wikipedia but is attributed to "World Heritage Encyclopedia", which copied it from us. They do, sort of, give attribution (even though the "Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles" claim is pure horseshit).

We should take care that neither of those sources ever becomes a source for this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, if anyone sees any more sockpuppetry, please consider reporting it at Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do sweep for all of these semi-spam "World Heritage" mirrors about once a week. Full list of all the domains is here if you're curious about the extend of the problem. Kuru   (talk)  14:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016
Request to upload the current corresponding program title card for this Wikipedia page, per user Barek talk page instructions as follows:

For the title card, as I have stated in the past, if you can upload one appropriately, I can then assist inserting it into the article. The page being protected does not prevent uploading. First, it's important NOT to upload it to the Commons (where it has been uploaded in the past), that is a sister website to Wikipedia, and they have more stringent rules on copyright, for example, "Fair Use" of copyrighted content is not accepted over there - that is why prior uploads to Commons have been deleted by their admins.To upload, you were previously supplied with a link to WP:Files for upload and asked to follow the menus. I'll make it even simpler: if you have a logged-in account, from the prior link provided you can reach the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, fill out the fields, in section 3 select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." - in the box that comes up, say it's for use at "The World Tomorrow (radio and television)", and select the option for "This is the official cover art of a work.", select the drop-down to say it's the "Title screen of a TV program" and fill in the remaining fields, then click "Upload".If you get a message in that process saying you are unable to upload the image directly over there, or you find it too convoluted to follow; but you already have a screenshot saved somewhere on the web that someone else can upload for you, one of the menu paths would also get you to the request form at this link; in the fields provided, provide the URL, say it is for fair-use, list the article where it is to be used, and any other requested data on that form - then save.As I said, once an image is uploaded correctly, I can assist with inserting it into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_WORLD_TOMORROW.jpg Thank you. worldtomorrowgta Worldtomorrowgta (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reply to identical request posted at user talk:Barek, where clarification on copyright intent was requested. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded correctly to Wikipedia: File Upload Wizard. Own work, copyright release, (Public Domain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtomorrowgta (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Image appears to be a copyright violation. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The file was done correctly. You may take a look at it at the link. I am the trademark and copyright holder. To pretend I am not, well, just do any cursory trademark and copyright search. You will see I am. Earl Timmons. President - The World Tomorrow television and radio broadcast. 198.223.226.236 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)worldtomorrowgta
 * Proof is needed that you are who you say you are. See OTRS. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well now isn't that special. You just blocked me with no expiration on the block, for being who I say I am, the copyright holder and content creator of the file upload. Why? What kind of backward rules are these being applied. You make me provide proof and a waiver at the file wizard uploader I am the copyright holder - and then permanently block me for being to close to the subject matter as the copyright holder! The file is uploaded correctly and you have marked it for discussion for deletion. I followed the instructions above given to me by super editor Barek to upload the file. Barek said he would assist after the file image was uploaded. But, instead, you have semi protected this page, marked the file for deletion, and banned my account. What double twisted backward standards. How was the same type file uploads at the Julian Assange World Tomorrow page? It had been there for years with none of these same issues claimed at this page. You are all capable tech gurus. Check me out. My IP address is here for your investigative pleasure. Earl Timmons - THE WORLD TOMORROW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.226.236 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The image at World Tomorrow was uploaded here on Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) with a fair use claim (File:Wikileaks-world-tomorrow-title-card-960x540.png). It's a completely different situation. Additionally, there's no way we can connect an IP address to a specific person. So, either upload the file here (WP:UPLOAD) with a fair use claim or follow the instructions at OTRS to prove you are the copyright holder and are willing to license the image permissively enough to be held on Wikimedia Commons and used on Wikipedia. You should also read Donating copyrighted materials and Licensing. Finally, your account here was blocked for having a promotional user name (WP:CORPNAME). Follow the instructions in the block notice to rename the account or create a new one with an appropriate username. clpo13(talk) 19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Now someone here blocked my wireless IP with a lie saying it was another user account. So I changed it to my dog's name. Dolly. I hope that is OK with you folks. We live in Sevierville Tennessee, home of Dolly Parton and Dollywood. Most folks everywhere love Dolly Parton, so I hope you wont object to us naming our dog after her. ":The image at World Tomorrow was uploaded here on Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) with a fair use claim (File:Wikileaks-world-tomorrow-title-card-960x540.png). It's a completely different situation." We attempted several years ago to use the same identical situation, uploaded by one of our members in another state, as the one described here with the Assange page. But, fault was found with that upload too. I have emailed "permissions" multiple times with no reply or response email. Obviously, any editor reviewing this matter can upload an image with simple ease to any other Wikipedia article, anytime they wish. One would imagine any editor reviewing this matter could do the same at this page. Obviously any editor can make this right and do the upload using the same technique used at the described herein (File:Wikileaks-world-tomorrow-title-card-960x540.png or by any other number of means. I will give it another shot, but clarification of copyright ownership WAS given, by me, multiple times by email to permissions, and just as instructed here: "provide the URL, say it is for fair-use, list the article where it is to be used, and any other requested data on that form - then save.As I said, once an image is uploaded correctly, I can assist with inserting it into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)"dollyparton7 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_WORLD_TOMORROW.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC) In your partial copy/paste, you conveniently left off the initial part of those instructions where I provided a link on Wikipedia, not the Wikimedia Commons[1]. You have been advised how to proceed - if you prefer ignoring that guidance and just make repeated demands that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons both change their processes - well, that's not productive to say the least.As to the duplicate image, it was uploaded in 2012 by a user who also claimed "we are the sole copyright and trademark owners of The World Tomorrow television and radio broadcast."[2] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC) We have several producer's and production staff who may have uploaded the old title card in 2012. But it did not look good anyway. The 2012 date does make our point, we have tried to do this properly for many years, only to have the content rejected, even when we used the exact duplicate procedure used at the Assange of the same name.

Now, not to repeat - but let's do keep this conversation open for review as it is being quickly deleted from all objecting parties private talk pages almost instantly.

The card was uploaded last night, not at COMMONS, but at the other as well. It was done at both to cover our bases. It was just done once again today. Please take a look for yourself. The new file title just uploaded at the WIKIPEDIA FILE UPLOAD WIZARD is: The World Tomorrow (radio and television).dollyparton7
 * @Dollyparton7: Who uploaded it at the English Wikipedia. I don't see anything in your edit history to indicate that your (new) account uploaded it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons again, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_World_Tomorrow_(radio_and_television).jpg (note the URL begins with "commons.wikimedia.org", that is the Commons). If your intent is to release the image into the public domain (meaning anyone anywhere to use, copy, modify, or to sell the image without giving notice to you), then the Wikimedia Commons is the correct place to host the image; but you will still need to go through OTRS to resolve their concerns (both with the ownership of the individual photos in the image, and the title card itself) as pointed out above.
 * If, on the other-hand, your intent is to retain ownership of the image, then it must be uploaded to Wikipedia and to tag the image under a "fair-use" rationale. As I said before, copyright law forces this to be an extremely complex process. Here's a walk-through to assist:
 * From the page File Upload Wizard, click on "Files for upload process"; then click on "Make a New Request". This will take you to the page Files for upload/Wizard. From here, you have four options. If the image is "Free" (ie: you release ownership) then the options on the left are correct. If you wish to retain your copyrights, the options on the right are correct. As you're using a newly created account, your username is likely not autoconfirmed. So, assuming you wish to retain ownership and you are not auto-confirmed, the correct box to click is "The image is non-free and I'm not auto confirmed". Next, click on "The image I want uploaded doesn't exist on Wikipedia". On this screen, assuming you intend to use a fair-use rationale, click on "The image is suitable for Wikipedia for another reason". This will be on the page Editing Wikipedia:Files for upload (new section). Read the instructions on this page and complete the upload. After uploading, the image will be hosted at a URL that begin with "en.wikipedia.org", this is how you can be sure the image is uploaded to Wikipedia. If you end up on the Commons again, the URL would begin with "commons.wikimedia.org". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Our sincere thanks and gratitude for assisting us with this upload. I'm sorry, but before I was so confused. Please accept our regrets and apologies for all previous misunderstandings and wrong accusations stemming from simple frustration. God Bless, all during this special time of year. Dollyparton7
 * As I mentioned at Commons:User talk:Barek, I can understand the frustration. Copyright concerns are one of my least favorite areas of Wikipedia - mainly due to the complexities of copyright law and the resulting convoluted process we have for uploading fair-use images.
 * We're not quite done yet; but we are (I believe) a step closer. I'm not sure the length of the backlog at Files for upload; and those Wikipedia volunteers who participate on that request board may have some follow-up questions for you. But once they process the request, you can submit another edit request here or feel free to request on my talk page and I can still assist with inserting the image into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sir,

I am new to Wikipedia. I am the President of the Church of God Worldwide; The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association and, CEO and producer for the subject corresponding Wikipedia article "The World Tomorrow (radio and television). My name is Earl Timmons.  Several years ago, three of our long running Christian out-reach TV shows title cards were successfully uploaded, approved and inserted into the Wikipedia article.  One was black and white from the early days of our shows inception in the 1960's, another from the 1980's and a current rendition.  However, after over one year on the site, the photos were removed and deleted.  For over three years hence, many of our supporter's, be they church members the world over, or fans and viewers of our world renowned telecast, have tried to upload even one representative current show title card to the article.  Yet, each time it is rejected almost immediately, many times without discussion. We have even used the same methods used at other well known sitcom Wikipedia pages such as FRIENDS; Family Guy; MASH; Seinfield, and used the exact same parameters and methods of uploading other editors have used at those specific page articles for example, yet the title card is deleted over and over again. Now, I was informed, as the sole copyright and trademark owner, (THE WORLD TOMORROW (radio and television)) is in my personal name, I had to do the upload and grant consent and identify myself as the copyright and trademark holder at the time of the upload. The uploaded image has been correctly submitted recently at Commons, AND at WIKIPEDIA File Upload Wizard. But now I am being subjected to accusations which involve a catch-22 by a user known here as Barek. Barek has wrongly accused me of self-identifying, and he has accused me of sock and meat puppetry. Barek is no friend of our church organization. We believe the article has been taken over by ex-members or dissidents who have camped out and placed a permanent protection template on the article so that no positive updates can be made to the article, or even a simple title card insertion request. Our show is said to be controversial, by those that attend the Catholic, Babtist and mainstream evangelical churches who worship on Sunday, the first day of the week. We worship as Christ Himself did, on the seventh day; Saturday. A current hit film called Hacksaw Ridge, a true story, is of the same subject matter the very controversial Christ ordained 7th day Saturday Sabbath versus the Catholic church changed Sunday sabbath. This article in question has had many disruptive edits in recent days, one by user Doug Weller who has launched a personal attack and wrong accusations toward my account, and user Barek, who feigns friendship, but for years he also has been involved in camping at this article and making destructive edits to its content, even removing well sourced and long established entire sections. User Barek feigns assisting with the upload and insertion but as a super editor he will not volunteer himself as he said he would, to insert the requested photo even now awaiting approval and insertion. Rather, he has worked for the better part of the day and evening yesterday and last night, and even today 12-2-16, to attack and falsely label me as some other meat or puppet as he call it, with other users at my talk page. Late last night, my username was unjustly without cause disabled and upon surprise inspection this morning, reactivated. As the producer of this television series, I am shocked at the level of bullying and immature behavior I have experienced as a first time new account holder. One would think Wikipedia would investigate this type bullying of new comers given Wikipedia administration is actively soliciting freewill offerings and donations from the general public and all users to remain independent and financially solvent.

The page in question has many issues which revolve around the ones discussed. Other areas of concern involve outdated content and factual errors. If Wikipedia does not honor this simple request to insert the show title card photo to the article within 72 hours, as the sole copyright and trademark claimant and owner, I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Wikipedia is a U.S. company bound by U.S. law. We simply do not wish a handful of disgruntled disruptive users camped out at the article here on Wikipedia, to continue to subvert and misuse content pertaining to our television series in this ongoing disruptive destructive manner. Dollyparton7 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)dollyparton7
 * Legal threat reported to ANI at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Call it what you will - friend, but it is not a "threat", but the law calls it is a "notification" of pending action. Similar legal NOTICE was sent via U.S. Postal Mail certified by our attorney, and by email - along with a formal complaint and additional legal documentation - to Wikipedia Legal, just this afternoon. Dollyparton7 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)dollyparton7

Two shows
This article appears to be chronicling two different shows, not one. The fact that a different organization got a trademark on the same name does not make it the same show, any more than the various publishers of comic books titled Captain Marvel have been publishing the same series. If that's the case, it should be split into separate articles, assuming that the shows are separately notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the opening paragraph, you will see the show only suspended production for awhile, and that was due to financial issues. Note, the original show, topics and same title and producer's resumed this original half hour series, in 2004.

"The World Tomorrow television program is in current production after it resumed in 2004...."

The series copyright and trademark rights were transferred from one original producer/owners name, into the name of another original co-producer, in 2004. The series then resumed production with the same format and name. The producer named in the above collapsed thread, owns the copyright and trademark rights dating back to May 30, 1942.

Mark Armstrong owns all materials, video, radio, and print - of his father, Garner Ted Armstrong, dating back to 1953. Gtaeaicg (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg


 * I read the opening paragraph, and I see the claim that the trademark was gotten not from the prior trademark owner, but from the government, which is something that one can do with a trademark that has died from inactivity. This is repeated in fuller detail lower in the article. I see that it is being produced by a different organization, not the Worldwide Church of God, but the Church of God Worldwide Ministries. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyright and trademark were transferred, yes both were transferred, look it up. The US Patent, Trademark and Copyright offices allow Copyrights and Trademarks to be transferred between individuals and entities. Transferred by Joseph Tkach, Jr. to Earl Timmons. (While the original church changed names, the television series and radio series remained the same.) The big organized parent church split into smaller groups of churches and most are registered independently with the secretary of state wherein, as non-profits.Gtaeaicg (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg


 * I have looked up the trademark. Registration 3209903, filed 11/26/2004, was a new registration, not a transfer. The registration was later transferred, from CHURCH OF GOD, WORLDWIDE MINISTRIES, THE to CHURCH OF GOD, WORLDWIDE MINISTRIES EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION, THE; and from there to WORLD TOMORROW EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION, but that's all within 2004 and later. The previous trademark for the TV show, registration 1382752, is dead, and there are no transfers listed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyrighted audio and video file ownership was transferred. You only ref. the trademark. Two different things. The copyright on the audio and video files transferred from GARNER TED ARMSTRONG PRODUCTIONS, INC.1953-2003 to son Mark Armstrong, upon dad's death. Gtaeaicg (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg

Signed and notarized corporate article of transfer documents are never visible online or at http://www.trademarkia.com. Nor are either of our father's wills.
 * I am not looking at trademarkia.com. I am using the TESS system of the USPTO themselves. It shows the record of transfers done through the office.
 * You were the one who told me that the trademark had been transferred and to look it up. That seems to have been false information. I have tried looking up the copyright, and as best as I can find, the copyrights on the TV episodes are still in the name of Worldwide Church of God. I'm not quite as good at wielding the copyright database as I am the trademark database, I will admit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to speak with you Nat Gertler, since we are having the same issue with Gtaeaicg. They are two different shows. Two DIFFERENT trademarks. Beware of the Vexatious Litigators, we we are dealing with here. Wwcg-archives (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While I am not hard to contact, if you wish to discuss the editing of this article, then it is best done here on this page. If you wish to discuss legal matters beyond the editing of this web page, I doubt I would be of much assistance to you, as I've put what I know on here, and am not a lawyer who could assist you. My interest is in maintaining accurate information on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As you can see with the section "Trademark" the information is accurate. Thank you for your help in this matter.Wwcg-archives (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Request Separate Article for The World Tomorrow(2004) - Trademark Registration #3209903
I request that another article be created for The World Tomorrow(2004) production, in contrast to the program with Herbert W Armstrong, for Shirley and Earl Timmons's trademark of 2004.

They are not the continuation of the TV Broadcast with Herbert W Armstrong, even the content within the programs are contradictory to the Original intent of the ORIGINAL World Tomorrow with Herbert W Armstrong.

I repost here the evidence of the differences in the two shows.

According to the United States Patent and trademark office, "The World Tomorrow" trademark used in the radio and television with Herbert W Armstrong, are different than the one obtained by Shirley and Earl Timmons in 2004. Here is the info on Shirley and Earl Timmon's trademark obtained in 2004. Again this can be found at the United States Patent and trademark office.

Word Mark - THE WORLD TOMORROW Goods and Services - IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational and entertainment services in the nature of on-going television programs in the fields of religious instruction, human rights and national and international event analysis. FIRST USE: 20050122. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050312 Mark Drawing Code - (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM Serial number - 76622212 Filing Date - November 26, 2004 Current Basis - 1A Original Filing Basis - 1B Published for Opposition - December 5, 2006 Registration Number - 3209903 Registration Date - February 20, 2007 Owner - (REGISTRANT) CHURCH OF GOD, WORLDWIDE MINISTRIES EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION, THE CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1965 Chapman Hwy 1965 Chapman Hwy Sevierville TENNESSEE 378762351 (LAST LISTED OWNER) WORLD TOMORROW EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1965 CHAPMAN HWY SEVIERVILLE TENNESSEE 37876 Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED Description of Mark - Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Type of Mark - SERVICE MARK Register - PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text - SECT 8(6-YR). Live.Dead Indicator - LIVE The initial trademark contained in the "World Tomorrow" TV Programs hosted by Herbert W Armstrong, does not contain the above trademark. It contains the following trademark.

Word Mark - THE WORLD TOMORROW Goods and Services - (EXPIRED) IC 041. US 107. G & S: TELEVISION PROGRAM WITH A HUMAN INTEREST APPROACH, DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, EDUCATIONAL TOPICS, AND AN ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS. FIRST USE: 19550700. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19550700 Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number - 73543141 Filing Date - June 14, 1985 Current Basis - 1A Original Filing Basis - 1A Published for Opposition - November 19, 1985 Registration Number - 1382752 Registration Date - February 11, 1986 Owner - (REGISTRANT) WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 300 W. GREEN STREET PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91123 Attorney of Record - LOUIS KUNIN Prior Registrations - 0791994 Type of Mark - SERVICE MARK Register - PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text - SECT 15/ SECT 8 (6-YR). Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD As indicated in the above trademark, there was a prior registration number "0791994" - ALL of which can be searched and found on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website.

Again I request that a separate article be created for Shirley and Earl Timmons's show trademarked "World Tomorrow" (2004) Serial number - 76622212, and Registration number - 3209903, to DISTINGUISH the two shows from each other. This is to ensure that there is no confusion in the eye of the PUBLIC on the two shows with separate TRADEMARKS.Wwcg-archives (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Separate trademark registration does not in itself mean they are separate shows. Ownership of the copyright would do more to show continuity of the work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trademark
According to the United States Patent and trademark office, "The World Tomorrow" trademark used in the radio and television, are different than the one obtained by Shirley and Earl Timmons in 2004. Here is the info on Shirley and Earl Timmon's trademark obtained in 2004. Again this can be found at the United States Patent and trademark office.

Word Mark - THE WORLD TOMORROW Goods and Services - IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational and entertainment services in the nature of on-going television programs in the fields of religious instruction, human rights and national and international event analysis. FIRST USE: 20050122. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050312 Mark Drawing Code - (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM Serial number - 76622212 Filing Date - November 26, 2004 Current Basis - 1A Original Filing Basis - 1B Published for Opposition - December 5, 2006 Registration Number - 3209903 Registration Date - February 20, 2007 Owner - (REGISTRANT) CHURCH OF GOD, WORLDWIDE MINISTRIES EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION, THE CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1965 Chapman Hwy 1965 Chapman Hwy Sevierville TENNESSEE 378762351 (LAST LISTED OWNER) WORLD TOMORROW EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1965 CHAPMAN HWY SEVIERVILLE TENNESSEE 37876 Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED Description of Mark - Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Type of Mark - SERVICE MARK Register - PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text - SECT 8(6-YR). Live.Dead Indicator - LIVE --- The initial trademark contained in the "World Tomorrow" TV Programs hosted by Herbert W Armstrong, does not contain the above trademark. It contains the following trademark.

Word Mark - THE WORLD TOMORROW Goods and Services - (EXPIRED) IC 041. US 107. G & S: TELEVISION PROGRAM WITH A HUMAN INTEREST APPROACH, DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, EDUCATIONAL TOPICS, AND AN ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS. FIRST USE: 19550700. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19550700 Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number - 73543141 Filing Date - June 14, 1985 Current Basis - 1A Original Filing Basis - 1A Published for Opposition - November 19, 1985 Registration Number - 1382752 Registration Date - February 11, 1986 Owner - (REGISTRANT) WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 300 W. GREEN STREET PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91123 Attorney of Record - LOUIS KUNIN Prior Registrations - 0791994 Type of Mark - SERVICE MARK Register - PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text - SECT 15/ SECT 8 (6-YR). Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD ---

As indicated in the above trademark, there was a prior registration number "0791994" - ALL of which can be searched and found on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwcg-archives (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You already have your answer. No.  continually asking and rephrasing the same question, will not yield a different result.  And, what of the copyrights to the show.  Do you have any relevant answers to that question?  Who owns the copyrights?  I am guessing Wccg-archives does not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.186.254 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the US gov't registry at Copyright.gov, the original TV episodes are copyright "Worldwide Church of God". There are no transfers recorded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag
Can you be specific about precisely what is in dispute?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a dispute that can be seen in the talk about whether the current series named The World Tomorrow is actually the same series as the one that ended in the 1990s. The question had been raised by a poster here, which I originally shrugged off, but as folks involved in the discussion who appeared linked to the current show attempted to address the question, it didn't really settle things. They basically asserted that they'd gotten the copyright and trademark, and that that could be looked up... but when I checked the government databases, the title trademark they got was a new one (the trademark in the original one would've expired for lack of use) and the copyright database showed no sign of a rights transfer that I could find. So the real question is whether we're talking about one series, or two series of the same name, the latter of which has not shown independent notability. (For folks who know comics, I can point to how at least three different publishers have produced comics using the title Captain Marvel (well, one was Captain Marvel Adventures, and they are too some degree of the same nature - superhero comics - but they are different series, not based on mutual intellectual property.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
I am contributing to the entry for Pirate Radio and several related station pages as well as Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God since all of these topics are related. I intend to add a lot more information to this page.

I admit to making a mistake when creating this page because I originally accidentally created "World tomorrow" and I discovered that once I had done so, I could not undo it, so I created this page. If someone would be kind enough to remove that original page I would appreciate it. Thanks. MPLX/MH 05:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another group called only "church of God", from Modesto CA, appears to run a radio program, and a website called the "Wonderful World Tomorrow". The slightly more upbeat sounding name appears to be an intentional tie-in although I see no evidence that the group is related to the Herbert W. Armstrong radio-program. --wpostma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.198.185 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archived episodes - discovery sourced to Wikipedia mirror content
Information regarding the "preservation discovery" of the archived episodes was recently added into the article via. However, the source provided ( www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/The_World_Tomorrow_(1934)?View=embedded%27%27 ) is simply a copy/paste of an older poorly sourced version of this Wikipedia page (scanning through article history, I'm guessing it's copied from 2015-ish timeframe). Since that source is a mirror of Wikipedia content, it does not meet the threshold for being a third-party reliable source, so I reverted the addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Painful Truth
While I just eliminated one, this article still has multiple uses of a website called The Painful Truth and to copies of articles from Ambassador Report posted there.. This concerns me for two reasons:
 * I am dubious that either The Painful Truth or Ambassador Report meets our standards for being "A Reliable Source"
 * I am not convinced that the Ambassador Report articles posted there are done so with the permission of the copyright holders, and thus it would be against policy for us to link to their posting on that website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've wondered about similar concerns myself, as mulltiple articles under the general topic of Armstrongism could be affected if sourcing attributable to Ambassador Report were removed, which while generally critical of the subjects, appears to reflect a great deal of knowledge on the respective topics, while at the same time possibly running afout of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Removal of this source could cause even cause a few articles to sink below the WP:SIGCOV threshold... Roberticus  talk  19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Whilst "The Painful Truth" is obviously negatively biased, it does not necessarily mean that what they write is untrue. I feel it is OK to quote them - others may balance their opinions with more positive references. --MarkGBetts (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not claiming that what they say is necessarily untrue; we're saying that it is not sufficiently necessarily true that we can trust it, under out guidelines for reliable sources. If we are quoting their opinions, it should only be when being discussed specifically as their opinions; that is a different matter than using them for factual claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)