User talk:German24

With regard to your recent changes, I suggest you read the long history on the discussion page (now archived) that documents how Wikipedia arrived at the current title, Local Churches (Affiliation). This is not an article about local churches which is a term not reserved for the Local Churches (Affiliation). A court case in Texas settled that issue long ago. So, if you are a "local church" without affiliation to the LSM you would not be considered a Local Church (Affiliation). Part of the problem with Wikipedia is "Johnny-Come-Latelies" like yourself coming on the scene and going back over old issues. Please remember, this is not a place for LC propaganda. This is an encyclopedia. Notice the heading and note below the heading, "Local churches (affiliation)" and "This article is about the group affiliated with Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. For other uses, see local church (disambiguation)." Thank you for you cooperation. Appropo (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Recovery Version
Please note the tone of other articles on Wikipedia. I cite the article on the American Standard Version of the Bible which when discribing its features states regarding footnotes,

"The divine name of the Almighty (the Tetragrammaton) is consistently rendered Jehovah in the ASV Old Testament, rather than LORD as it appears in the King James Bible. The reason for this change, as the Committee explained in the preface, was that "...the American Revisers...were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament..." Other changes from the RV to the ASV included (but were not limited to) substituting "who" and "that" for "which" when referring to people, and Holy Ghost was dropped in favor of Holy Spirit. Page headings were added and footnotes were improved."

Please note that no reference is made to the number of footnotes. Wikipedia articles are to have a NPOV. They should not be advertisements. Without the reference to either the number of verses in the Bible the average reader would have no idea of the extent of the footnotes in the Recovery Version. Is 15,000 footnotes a lot? Would it be more relavant to state the number of words in the footnotes?--probably. But it sound braggish. So a reference to the number of verses in the Bible seemed appropriate. However, you were unhappy with that. So, I eliminated the braggish element and just stated the fact that it had footnotes. But you were unhappy with that. So, I compared other versions on Wikipedia and again found this statement to be braggish and hence not NPOV. I have changed the article a third time in an attempt to make it NPOV. Appropo (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Appropro
First of all, the childishness of your attitude, along with the consistent bias found within your edit history, provide enough proof such that I have no need to even make this response to you.

You cannot verify the claim that you insist on keeping posted on the Local churches (affiliation). I would ask you, without the ability to verify such a claim, why do you continue to insist on keeping it on the page? Is it because of your OWN, PERSONAL OPINION, a blatant extrapolation based on your OWN, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? The talk pages related to yourself and your edits prove my point, so until you can PROVE this claim, which you will not be able to do, I will continue to remove it.

Previously, you insisted on comparing the number of footnotes with the number of verses on the Recovery Version page. Why? How is this comparison relevant to an encyclopedic article? You first insist on the comparison, more information than is necessary, and then only a few days later you insist on too little of data. Simply letting the reader know the amount of footnotes and cross-references "sounds braggish"? Maybe to you, but this is not so to the average reader. Simple hard facts, such as the number of footnotes and cross-references, without irrelevant information that crowds the page and distracts the reader, is what constitutes a high-quality encyclopedic article.

The particular statement in the article had no third party reference for the numbers and consequently it should be removed. The burden of proof is on you to prove through a third party reference that this is a fact. Appropo (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Christianity
This section primarily concerns how Lee saw Christianity. It makes no attempt to accuse Lee of heretical stances. It, as seen by the quotes, expresses how Lee saw Christianity and the relationship of his work to it. The added paragraph appears a reaction to accusations made elsewhere by some who formerly saw Lee as heretical and evidently no longer do so. It is an apology on the nature of Lee's Christian faith which was in doubt by some but is not even referred to in this section. On the contrary, this section begins with a description of the common faith and then goes on to describe how Lee attempted to set himself apart from Christianity. The writers of the deleted portion appear to be sensitive to the criticisms not mentioned here. I suggest their writing might belong more appropriately elsewhere. It especially does not belong in an article about Witness Lee and his teachings. It may belong in an article about criticisms of Witness Lee's teachings, but not here. Appropo (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I deleted any references to other Christians thoughts about Lee. Otherwise one will endlessly present differing points of view. This may be appropriate in an article on Local Church Controversies, but it is not appropriate here. The article is concerning Witness Lee, his life, teachings and work, not the opinions of others about him. Please keep it NPOV. Appropo (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)