In the course of adding material to the entry for Pirate Radio I will also be adding links to this page due to the fact that "The World Tomorrow" broadcast helped to finance the Pirate Radio stations off the British coastline between 1964-1967,

In addition to the financial aspects of the "Pirate Radio" station broadcasts, there are also 2)links to such off-beat topics as the Bonzo Dog Band whose UK recording of "Intro and the Outro" contains a spoof feature of Garner Ted Armstrong performing lyrics.

However, while the Radio Church of God, later the Worldwide Church of God was a religion, it was a also a geo-political movement whose teachings were buried within a religious context. The overseas broadcasts seemed to follow the strange establishment of CIA client stations such as "Radio Swan" (later called "Radio Americas") which played a key role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. This station has a well documented history tied to the CIA. The same is true of stations like "Radio Tangier International" in Africa, and his Russian language broadcasts from "Radio Monte Carlo".

Yet it is the "Radio Luxembourg" and "Radio Caroline North", "Radio 270", "Radio Scotland", "Radio 390" and "Wonderful Radio London" broadcasts that are most interesting because they represented the US interests in developing Europe as a single entity. The French under de Gaulle advanced the idea of a United States of Europe" having similar powers to the United States of America, while the USA and the UK advanced the idea of a United Europe as a single trading block that would be tied to the USA. Armstrong's broadcasts and supporting literature had a history dating back to pre-WWII in which he warned that a United States of Europe would eventually defeat both the UK and USA with a person similar to Adolph Hitler as its leader. This is thoroughly documented in both the recordings of his broadcasts and his literature. In fact before WWII ended Armstrong thought that the USA would lose and when it actually won, he immediately began predicting that a USE would arise from the ashes and try again. His dire warnings predate even the earliest of the Benelux agreements for trade in iron, steel and coal.

I will post a note here at such time that I am about to make further additions to this this entry. MPLX 19:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the controvery of "pirate radio", here’s what went on, from the pen of the man at the center of it all, H.W. Armstrong, whose words carry much weight, not only as a primary source, but as a respected religious leader honored by dozens of world leaders--royalty and heads of state(Taken from The Plain Truth, Personal from the Editor, November, 1967):

I break off at that point for comment. The ship radio stations which encircled the British Isles were dubbed by the press 'pirate radio.' But they were in no sense 'pirates.' A pirate ship is a marauder, a robber on the high seas. The owners of these ships did not come ashore and plunder, rob, steal. Their broadcasting was NOT ILLEGAL. They were not stealing anybody's wave length. There was no law against them -- that is, as long as The WORLD TOMORROW was broadcast by them to many million eager British listeners. Actually, the ships themselves are not illegal even now -- being outside British jurisdiction. What the British government did was to make it illegal for Britons or British institutions to broadcast over them. Ambassador College in England is incorporated as a British institution. As soon as such broadcasting did become illegal, we took the program off. We preach and practice submission to authority.

Jebbrady 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I attempted to merge information into this article from aduplicate article "Herbert Armstrong". However, upon closer examination I discovered there was nothing in that article which was not already written in this one. -- SwissCelt 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the old version of the "Herbert Armstrong" article (before it became the redirect that it is now). The point about "no middle name" was interesting. There is even a web reference confirming it. So I merged that small bit into the HWA article, today. -Whiner01 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reference is suspect if it claims that Herbert Wright Armstrong had no middle name. "Herbert W. Armstrong" is unquestionably the most widely used and recognized form. 75.192.212.227 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Denver

I removed the DisputeCheck because items discussed here have been resolved. 70.177.68.209 8 October 2005

About the extensive Bible quotations now in the article defending against the charges - basically an ad hominem against the sources, not the substance of the charges. Are these extended Bible apoiogetics defending Armstrong really necessary in an encyclopedia article, SwissCelt? It adds little, if nothing of original value to the article. 71.244.13.126 1 November 2005

I put up a comment pointing British/Anglo-Israelism to the Christian Identity. Some who are pro-armstrong might find it controversial since it is a white supremist theology. However, if one reads the Christian Identity Article, it clearly points out the Anglo-Israel arguement. Hopquick 13 December 2005

Where are the sources for this list of beliefs? --User:Galut5 (comment moved here from article) --Hetar 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The most extensive list of doctrines for Worldwide Church of God beliefs is documented in There Came a Falling Away: [1] (this is a pdf, the list of 280 doctrines begins on page 44. The doctrines originally taught by the WCG are list as "old teachings" or the first in the list. The rest of the book explains each doctrine in detail.)

Hrm. I am going to put a copy of this on the main page under doctrines.

Jeffreydavis 15:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

There was a link to a pro-Armstrong web page and claims that Armstrong is the prophet Elijah. This is not NPOV so I removed it. I also removed the anti-Armstrong copy/paste of a long article from Ambassador Report. I kept the reference which is sufficient. RelHistBuff 08:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed more than just advertising so you are actually being dishonest. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_W._Armstrong&diff=prev&oldid=96171458 for what you removed. My account of the Elijah controversy was accurate and unbiased. I've studied Worldwide Church of God literature and the literature of the Churches of God formed in the aftermath of the breakup. I have a letter from the Living Church of God that supports my assertion as to their views.

I'm sure people doing a serious research on Herbert Armstrong would like to know about the Elijah controversy. It's a shame somebody would intervene and bar them from this information. Have you ever heard of the right to receive information and ideas? Williamaswensonjr 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to contain all sorts of highly contentious claims about HWA which are not purely encyclopadic. This is badly in need of some culling. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. In fact I already started cleaning this up quite a bit. There were lots of references promoting Armstrong's views and were clearly not NPOV. The "Other doctrines" section seem more like a "Promotion of doctrines". I think it is best just to keep the four major doctrines subsection and remove the other doctrines subsection. RelHistBuff 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have culled and changed a lot, but there is still a lot more work to be done to get this article to be truly encyclopaedic and to demonstrate NPOV. In particular, the Character and Reputation section should be completely rewritten or removed. The long quote from his autobiography looks more like promotion. The external links are either WCG splinter groups promoting HWA or ex-church members attacking HWA. This article may need a complete rewrite. RelHistBuff 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the culling, it was impossible to take out all the POVs. The article really suffered a "death by a thousand cuts" or edits. I have rewritten the article going back to original sources and trying to keep NPOV. I hope others can add or improve on this without the vandalism inflicted that was inflicted on the previous version. Please put your comments on this talk page before making major revisions. RelHistBuff 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What a transformation, you should get a highly commended for this objective treatment of such a sensative subject. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My main motivation was Wikipedia itself. I got lot of value from it and I thought I should return the favour. I hope others will do the same. RelHistBuff 13:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You did remove a few points which perhaps should -not- have been removed, including the fact (admitted in his autobiography, which you referenced) that Loma Dillon was his cousin. JesseCuster 16:31, 13 May 2006

I took a look in his autobiography and he said Loma was his third cousin and her father is his mother's first cousin. I'm not sure if that needs to be put in. RelHistBuff 06:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the controversy about his relationship with his daughter (which, at this writing, is not reflected in the article at all), the information that his wife was his second or third cousin may be relevant. (The info RelHistBuff quotes from the autobio is confusing. If Loma's father and Herbert's mother are first cousins, their children are second cousins, not third cousins. I have not checked the bio myself; just contributing this in case the incest issue is incorporated into the article at some point.) -- Lisasmall 04:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There were some major changes done by an anonymous editor. Could he/she please state the reasons for the changes? Meanwhile, I have reverted back to the original.

I agree with one of the edits that the Armstrong referred to the Church of God (Seventh Day) as the church in Sardis not Laodecean. So I put that back in. RelHistBuff 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

from69.115.161.123Jebbrady Please see 'reply to Relhistbuff" below for comments on recent edits and quality of scholarship, and a running dialogue between Relhistbuff and myself.

I have moved the post that was originally in another subsection to this subsection at the bottom in order to bring this into chronological order as in standard practise. I have copied and pasted the post below. RelHistBuff 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many biography aspects are clear and uncontroversial. There is still a very strong emphasis in several areas on only the controversial issues. The fact that the biography focuses on 90% on the last 10 years of this man's life is not surprising given the significance of those last 10 years. However, more empasis could be put on the formative years. In addition, once source (The Ambassador Report) is used for 70-100% of the citations in this and related articles. While The Ambassador Report cannot be entirely excluded as a source (and, arguably, it has provided a useful role in documenting certain factual data such as dates, personalities involved etc.) it is a heavily biased 'publication' (in the UK, it would be called a scandal sheet). There are many issues (including the receivership of the WCG) which are very well documented in the conventional media and I think we (myself included) can work a little harder to use those other sources to produce a well-rounded piece (both in terms of the various periods of this man's life and the various points of view as to his achievements/controversies). In my view, this biography is a long way from that point (not that more volume needs to be written). I note that there are several sincere contributors working on reaching that point. == Anon ==

In response, additional input would be welcome especially in regards to Tkach's role during the receivership years. If you have the sources, please cite them. As for the use of Ambassador Report, please note that I used them only as sources for getting factual data and I was very careful not to include the biased commentary. And although AR is biased against the WCG, note that I also used several sources that are biased for the new WCG. The important point is that the article remains neutral, but the sources where the information is from must be cited as per Wikipedia citation policy. In discussing on these talk pages, please sign your post as per Wikipedia guideline. It makes it easier to keep track of the discussion. RelHistBuff 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'll read the Wiki protocol). Your comments on your use of the Ambassador Report are well taken. However, much of the data is available from pro or neutral sources. A quick google yields some interesting things. Using a scandal sheet as a source, however, seriously undermines the well intentioned work done to date. If I wanted to write a critique of George Bush, I would produce a highly more credible article if I quoted from US News than if I quoted from the National Enquirer (if you take my point). Clearly this entry and related entries cannot be owned by any one individual. Let's work together to produce some quality sources. Quoting from a highly biased publication to satisfy source criteria (no matter how carefully selected) is not ideal research practice. [[User:]] 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This addition you made is done in good faith, but perhaps you could reconsider--it may make people think the old Worldwide Church of God was part of the 'Christian right" political movement, which would be ironic because they specifically taught against the idea that the true church should ever get involved with governemnts and politics.

Also,though I'm someone who chose to get a degree in history, and thus am someone who understands the importance of citing authorities, I think this particular citation is problematic, because the overall statement could be construed by readers that an "expert authority" from a university sees similarities in the old Worldwide with radical groups that have a legitimately documented history of negative behaviour like the David Koresh's ect... As you know, the H.W. Armstrong page can be a starting point for people to decide for themselves. Of course if loaded statements are avoided, people curious about H.W. Armstrong will be encouraged rather than discouraged from doing their own independent research to find out more and decide for themselves what to think.

You know, I wanted to add a statement to temper the professorial thought/ reference, and I really did not want to remove it, but there was just no way to add a tempering thought without the passage appearing ludicrously self-contradictory, or drifting toward op-ed type writing.

I trust that you'll give these thought careful consideration and I thank you in advance for being objective about these comments. --Jebbrady 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)jebbrady

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

Please discuss before implementing major changes. --RelHistBuff 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV. There are also policies on WP:V and I intend to cite sources (WP:CITE) for the original article written before the POV damage. --RelHistBuff 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

69.115.161.123Jebbrady

Please see 'reply to Relhistbuff" below for a reply to these assertions, and a running dialogue between Relhistbuff and me.

--You you have made sweeping deletions and criticisms recently. I have a couple comments.

You may wish to review the appropriate level of NPOV reflected in the following edit, where you left everything alone in a passage except the following statement: "From his new contacts in Los Angeles, Armstrong began to realize the potential for reaching a much larger audience". You replaced it with this: "From his new contacts in Los Angeles, Armstrong began to realize the potential for expanding his media empire". Certainly you don't think this reveals any lack of NPOV, else you would not have made that change. The record now speaks on that issue alone, and I have no concerns about anyone agreeing with me in my assessment of the NPOV of your edit there.

Please notice also your characterization of Armstrong's baptism, again keeping in mind your confidence in wholesale deleting of other's contributions: "In 1927 he was baptized by a Baptist minister and he described the event in his autobiography as a conversion experience". I am not alone in straightaway recognizing in this statement by you a lack of familiarity with and understanding of Armstrong's writings and the old WCG doctrines, and how greatly these differ with modern American Protestantism (which often entails "conversion experiences" at baptism)--in this case, in regards to baptism and true conversion. As seen in most of his major works, and the booklets on repentance, baptism, and conversion, respectively, he always spoke of the emotional "conversion experiences" of traditional American Christianity as being false, and unbiblical. His teaching clearly was that conversion was not an "experience" but was about submission to God and character development, with it being a life-long process, and that the only aspect of what one might call an initial "conversion" at baptism, according to him, involved an issue having nothing to do with the "conversion experience" so frequently referred to in American Protestantism (He taught that the receiving of the Holy Spirit and begettal into God's family upon baptism was a kind of initial conversion, with the real conversion through continual spiritual growth, as mentioned above, to follow).

Here's a another point to consider: you inserted proportionally large passages about 'scandals', as you put it, revolving around two high ranking people in the WCG. Perhaps that would be appropriate in an article about the old WCG, if done in fairness, in proportion, and without sensationalistic terms like "scandal". I ask, if someone were doing a biography on you, would it seem professional of them to use up %40 of the text talking about your son and a close colleague of yours at work? And of course when we consider that these disproportionate, tangential references were strictly of a negative nature, as opposed to the universe of positive tangential insertions one could come up with even for someone like Joseph Stalin (i.e. "one of his commissars did at least help an old lady across the street, once"), it certainly does not look good for your objectivity--your NPOV.

I will not take time to comment extensively on some of the sections you put in on accusations against Armstrong and Stanley Raider's involvement with Armstrong's activities. I am more than confident that their lack of fitness for an encyclopedia article will be upheld if need be: the assertions and statements (not to mention the oblique, implied, thinly veiled digs) by you toward Armstrong and his administration in these passages, in regards to professional authoritative standards, are at best problematic.

My aim is to uphold the quality and fairness of this article, and to receive with grace legitimate correction from those who know better than I in this subject and Wikipedia matters. If you fail to see the solid reasoning in these repudiations, that's fine--I have no doubt that the appropriate Wikipedia authorities will, and I have saved what I wrote here for future reference. There is no need for you to reply because what has been done by you up to this point speak for itself, and I will not waste any more time in an ongoing exchange with you--but I will do my utmost to keep this reply visible to all if I am forced to by your actions. I certainly am willing to take down this reply if it becomes appropriate. P.S. I am also a real history buff, possessing a bachelor's degree in it. 69.115.161.123jebbrady

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

(Incidently you didn't remove the offending portions as you said you would. I will look into increasing the citations beyond reproach--as it stands now, a quick glance reveals to all that the article as it is now surpasses the recent revert that I object to. I certainly will consider specific points where you beleive citations are necessary) 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

In addition to what I already wrote above, I would add the following: Considering your additions turned the Armstrong entry into something resembling a tabloid article (in both the focus of content and legitimacy of sources), whether you can see that or not, and aside from the lack of legitimate sources, I'd like to point to the example of an Encyclopedia Britannica Article on Mozart. Though in Mozart's case it actually has in fact been universally established by scholarly authorities that he did largely live a "scandalous" life, especially for that time, you will find that article to be entirely focussed on the unique activities, works and accomplishments that made him famous, influential, and intersting to begin with. It was his life work that made him a subject of interest and study, and therefore is the very reason why in the first place he would be included at all in such an encyclopedia. Therefore, how much less appropriate is it to include unsubstantiated hearsay?

I'm frankly amazed that you assert that others contributions somehow contain a lack of nuetral point of view (NPOV). Meanwhile, your additions strike me as arguably the most obvious in the axe-to-grind-department that I've ever seen. You even slip in sweeping negative digs largely apropos of nothing in the context, into what were normal sounding passages. It would appear that what others added recently reads like a tract in your eyes because you project your own lack of NPOV into the work of others. Apparently they must be biased somehow because they don't have a burning desire to stretch and strain to cram as much negativity into the article as possible, whatever the level of hearsay and number of unsubtantiated assertions. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

I have removed the "conversion" objection and I used your words in replacing "media empire". Could you please also reciprocate rather than making accusations? I am trying to cooperate. --RelHistBuff 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing in your tone the making of an honest debate: I don't think my detailed criticism amounts to "accusations" any more than you having first made sweeping, broad assertions that changes I was involved in "read like a tract" and that the article is "filled with POV"( I would specifically characterize those commnents by you as broad, sweeping assertions, but not "accusations".)

Considering that the defining nature of your edits is to change the article over to almost a purely tabloid focus (and to erase information that readers would obviously be interested to know I might add), it appears that your above offer to make relatively miniscule changes based on some points I made--alterations that you are obligated to make anyway by any standard of sholarship, would at least have the appearance of politicking and posturing to caste yourself in a favorable light before the wikipedia staff, and if so, I think it's an insult to their intelligence, and mine--all of ours. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

Note that the original article was not "tabloid". It was neutral and, I agree, it could be improved. The first versions tended to not biographic at all and it was rewritten to be NPOV. However, the current version has degenerated to POV-oriented version. Could we start instead with a completely stripped down version and rebuild it piece-by-piece? --RelHistBuff 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak to the end product that appeared after you had made changes, and what you decided to allow to go up, whether or not it was originally written by you, should be and will be attributed to you and will be reckoned as a demonstration of your good faith or lack of it, and not only do I have faith that your intentions and obejctivity will be evaluated from that, I will continue to refer to that edit as if all the material was your own--after all, you posted it.

If you wish to make specific suggestions for alterations to the article version that you changed, (for clarity, I'm referring specifically to the version that was cleaned up and rebuilt these past three months and stood unchanged for abvout 7 weeks until your massive edit last week) I will be happy to implement them the most effective and fair way I can, as long as they are NPOV, logical, fair, proportioned, appropriate for an article on Armstrong as opposed to the WCG, and if they meet the overll criteria of professionally serving peoples' curiosity--without manipulating it-- curiosity about his teachings, booklets, the scope of the work, and even his overall moral prestige or lack thereof (if you choose to "go there") by focusing on what has been clearly established. A new order has come to the plains.

I appreciate your conciliatory tone, and yearn to give you the benefit of the doubt, but what you have posted so far speaks to a lack of good faith and credibility, and because of that, it seems more expedient and beneficial to those curious about H.W. Armstrong, and for me, to just go strait to wikipedia authorities to settle this.

You continue to speak of the recent version which was I involved as being completely NPOV, as if your asserting that over and over without specifics will persuade people. This article you completely trashed was up for 6-7 weeks, with no one during that time besides you seeing fit to alter it in any significant way (except for some additions I made). Why is it NPOV? You have not gone into a single specific example (while I have provided several examples and comments). Why is the work others have done on this NPOV? Because you say it is apparently.

Let me just ask this: By what authority do you write? What are your credentials to make such changes, and to feel entitled to a major role in rebuilding the article from scratch as you suggested? Let's just for a moment lay aside the obvious imbalance in subject matter you presented (again, whether you originally wrote it or not), the axe-to-grind tone, tabloid-like focus (again, please read the Britanica entry on Mozart), and the flagrant NPOV your edit exuded--laying all that aside, your lack of basic familiarity and understanding of Armstrongs teachings JUMP OFF THE PAGE, and anyone who is familiar with these matters can spot it at once, and for that reason alone--not to mention the others--it could become very embarrassing for Wikipedia. An example of this, in addition to what I've pointed out already, though not written by you in the article but still revealing, was the statement you made in a discussion posting where you said "you had decided" after dipping into his autobiography that Amrstrong had in fact labelled the Church of God (Seventh Day) as "Sardis" of the book of Revelation. I have to tell you, that was a basic, foundational teaching of the church he led--and became such early on, and is common knowledge today by hundreds of thousands of people I would guess. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

The version I had written was up from mid-May to end-Oct (over 20 weeks). Your 7 weeks came after that. There is no authority that needs to be "shown". I can very well ask the same question to you, but I will not. Everyone is entitled to contribute. That is Wikipedia. The reason I prefer to start from basics is because it can potentially build a well-cited and neutral article. Can we agree on some core basic text and start from that point? --RelHistBuff 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't which article was up first or up longer--arguing from that standpoint would be absurd. In fact, If I had known prior to this October of the usefullness, prestige, popularity and influence of Wikipedia, and had seen what was presented by you on Armstrong then, I would have been shocked into action at that time. I think my overall point is that you haven't remotely demonstated unbiased good faith,or scholarly command of the subject, yet you attack the work of others in broad strokes verbally and physically because it doesn't conform to your level of negativity.

I have taken the time to get specific and cite examples on this discussion page--more than I originally planned as I'm sure you noticed. Please submit specific ideas for alterations to the current article. Until you bring some specifics to your sweeping charges of the article lacking NPOV, and what needs changing, there is nowhere to begin. I may agree with you on some things if you provide something better--afterall, I did not originally begin or write all of what is currently posted. I've certainly taken a lot of time to write on specifics on this discussion page, and of course I have much more to say.

Let's get it out in the open.

It has come to my attention that there is a dual entry under "Herbert Armstrong" (as opposed to the one under the full, proper name Herbert W. Armstrong). Of course, his name was always presented by him with the "W", and yet many people who don't know that certainly have been ending up at the "w"-less article, where your (relhistbuff) edits have reigned for more than a week now, I'm guessing-if not more. I must say, this really should have been mentioned by you to me, don't you think? Here you are, trying to show forth a "good faith", cooperative posture, meanwhile you are carrying on with all the objectionable scholarship over there without those in the wikipedia community who object to your edits having any way to find out save by chance--which is what happened (I called a friend to show him what you and I and others had written, and he accidently stumbled upon this other article). The existance of this article will of course be brought to the attention of the proper authorities here ASAP. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume you must be a new user because the "entry" you mentioned is in fact a redirect to the article itself, Herbert W. Armstrong. Try Herbert Armstrong and you will see. --RelHistBuff 08:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ok. very good. I don't quite understand why my friend typed in Herbert Armstrong and got the article you had extensively editied, while at that same moment, I had the other version on my screen at Herbert W. Armstrong. Please advise. I'm a new contributor, as I alluded to. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

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

My apolgies, Relhistbuff. I still have issues with the strong appearance of "good faith" problems refelcted in what you included and took out of your version, and how you changed phrasing of things, but I do apologize for that misunderstanding concerning the redirect. My friend had not been to the Armstrong article for a very long time if ever, so we did get confused. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

This is difficult. I see two editors interested in the subject matter, both keenly interested in putting forth a good article that complies with WP:NPOV. I am happy to see that the conversation has been civil although heated. However, I should make some points:

• 69.115.161.123jebbrady is admittedly a new user. Both editors here need to be aware of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith guidelines. It appears to me that both are editing in good faith, so be careful with your accusations.

You are right to cringe at "accusations". The rule of good faith assumption is essential to cooperation. And I realize a third party unfamiliar with the life of a particular religious figure may not see an imbalance in the level of negativity in a version posted. For those of us who are familiar, at some point the evidence turns a corner--common sense reveals a lack of good faith, in this specific case, lack of good faith comes in the form of one version manifesting flagrant, painfully obvious religious descrimination (For more detail on why I say that, see the running dialoque below). To sum up, every possible negative inuendo and unsubstantiated accusation was literally jammed into a version Realhistbuff posted and is promoting as a starting point, meanwhile the same version could not mention a single positive accomplishment out of a litany that Armstrong was involved in. I certainly don't make these criticisms lightly, nor the questioning of "good faith", else I would not be involved here. I am counting on the common sense of the wikipedia staff in examining this as closely as possible, taking the strongest disciplinary action they can. The facts speak for themselves and I will continue to explicate this in detail.:

• By the way, jebbrady, if you're signing your name on your posts anyway, why not just create an account? (inserted by me 12/18)
• User:RelHistBuff seems to have a sense of ownership about this article. That's only natural (I'm guilty of that myself regarding articles I've spent much time editing), but RelHistBuff needs to let go of that feeling. Nobody owns it, even if you wrote it originally. That's simply the way Wikipedia works. And jebbrady, the scholarly qualifications of editors here aren't an issue on any Wikipedia article, so don't make it one.

From 69.115.161.12369.115.161.123Jebbrady69.115.161.123: Just a quick comment on my "by what athority do you write; what are your credentials" opening to one of my latter paragraphs: I didn't really mean to imply that he lacks it or that it is a wikipedia requirment, (or that I am a "scholar"--whatever that means--for that matter). Having just seen the dramatic changes in the article made my Realhist, and having read the "ashes to ashes" comment about the "degenerate" changes by others including me, and that he is charging me with a non NPOV, and his sense of ownership as you put it, you can see how I would be on the defensive, looking to turn the tables of the debate just a little. That's all.

• Accusations that one version reads like a "tract" and the other reads like a "tabloid" aren't useful. In my opinion, after looking at both versions, both accusations have slight merit, but only slight. Both versions are decent on their own, but both have NPOV problems.

From 67.80.157.45Jebbrady: I must respectfully reply that the term "tabloid" is the most succinct, and, I believe, accurate term to describe the version promoted and worked on by Relhistbuff that I could come up with. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "tabloid" as "of or relating to tabloids; esp : featuring strories of...crime or scandal presented in a sensationalistic manner." The text throughout is filled with innuendo, and aproximately forty percent of the text is directly devoted to salacious, unfounded allegations that surfaced from disgruntled excommunicated members. And Third Party correctly recognizes, in the bullet point just below, the "sensationalistic prasing" throughout. If all this doesn't constitiute the "featuring (of) strories of...crime or scandal presented in a sensationalistic manner", then I don't know what I could further say to convince, except to request a reread of the version promoted by Relhistbuff one more time with this in mind.:

• jebbrady is correct that it's wrong to use sensationalistic phrasing, and that the article content should focus on what makes Armstrong notable, in line with Wikipedia:Undue weight. It's fine to mention controversy and scandal, but if that's not what makes Armstrong notable, then only a mention is needed, not whole paragraphs, and not attention-grabbing sentences like how his wife was 50 years younger, or whatever.
• Even so, I can see where RelHistBuff is coming from regarding the characterization of jebbrady's edits. The article should be accessible and meaningful to any English-speaker, Christian or non-Christian. I can't help but get the impression, while reading jebbrady's version, that it was written with a Christian POV. It's nothing I can put my finger on specifically; it's more of an overall impression that detail about church politics and distinctions in doctrines would be lost on a neutral, nonreligious, non-theologian, non-scholar reader. The article needs to be more concise, giving the important facts about the subject without delving too deeply into details, leaving those details for the cited references.

Because RelHistBuff's version is shorter, but jebbrady's version seems unnecessarily detailed (albeit more scholarly) I suggest that you follow RelHistBuff's suggestion and start with RelHistBuff's version, in which jebbrady can rephrase and delete parts deemed POV, and only then incrementally add more detail. This isn't an optimal solution I know, but it's all I can come up with. I understand this opinion may not be satisfactory but I hope it helps to have my neutral 3rd pair of eyes look things over and offer my impressions. -Amatulic 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a response to your input, and this will be an impetus to add the record other points I had wanted to make about the Rehistbuff version, hopefully appealing to the common sense of those who will read the discussion posts. I think you make a couple good points regarding the version I am supporting—though I will qualify them, and I will definitely reread it with what you said in mind, making changes where necessary. I also think a couple points you make are based on flawed reasoning, and I’ll address your suggestion that we start over with the Relistbuff version—I’m sure you are not surprised that I disagree heartily. It makes me glad that there is a staff that ultimately intervenes, which is where I prefer to go even now. Stay tuned. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

I certainly understand (and expected) your disagreement with my opinion. Bear in mind that I'm not part of any "staff"; I came here because RelHistBuff posted a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion, as is proper when an unresolvable dispute exists between only two editors. The point is to invite somebody with no prior knowledge or bias about the subject to offer an opinion on how to resolve the dispute — which is what I did. I read the discussion here and looked over both versions, and I wrote from the point of view of someone who has never encountered this topic before.

A third opinion is not binding, although it is hoped that both parties consider it carefully, and hopefully set the editors on the road to resolving the dispute. Requesting a third opinion is the first step to resolving an irreconcilable dispute. If resolution still appears impossible, one could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the hope that more people will offer their opinions. If that fails and you still can't come to terms with one another, try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (which does involve a staff), but such a request must meet specific prerequisites before the mediation committee agrees to get involved. -Amatulic 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the process and reassurance, it is very helpful and it took time to do that.

I do wish you had stopped short of recommending a particular version for the starting point. As for the choice for the new starting point, when taking your comments as a whole, (and mine), it appears that much less needs to be changed in the October ("jebbbrady") version, starting with the intro which was deleted and left blank in Rehhistbuff's version, and which is very similar to the one on Pat Robertson. Overall, I will in good faith cahnge the article from October with what you said in mind, but I guess I wouldn't mind if you reread my comments on the discussion page one more time. P.S., Last night, I paired down by about %85 of the section on the Church of God (Seventh day) Did you read that version or the earlier? 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

I read both your comments several times. I only recommended a starting version by virtue of its smaller size, not its content. I may have been mistaken about whose it was, and I looked at only three or four in the edit history (one in October, one earlier, and a couple edits by both of you in the past day or so). I stated that this recommendation wasn't an optimal solution. Feel free to ignore that recommendation if you have a better approach. If most of my other comments result in a better article for all parties concerned, then the effort I expended trying to understand the dispute wasn't wasted. -Amatulic 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough my friend. Well said. Just a quick comment on my "by what athority do you write; what are your credentials" opening to one of my latter paragraphs: I didn't really mean to imply that he lacks it or that it is a wikipedia requirment, (or that I am a "scholar"--whatever that means--for that matter). Having just seen the dramatic changes in the article made my Realhist, and having read the "ashes to ashes" comment about the "degenerate" changes by others including me, and that he is charging me with a non NPOV, and his sense of ownership as you put it, you can see how I would be on the defensive, looking to turn the tables of the debate just a little. That's all. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

In the meantime, I have a question to pose for Relhistbuff that I am anxious for a reply to: Would you let me know in your reply, (here on this discussion page, ASAP if you don't mind) if you have ever heard or know about anything positive that Herbert W. Armstrong was involved in--that is, things done through the church and in the name of the church, but not necessarily religious or directly part of leading the church? I didn't see anything mentioned in your version. I did notice you deleted a standard intro list of such things in the introduction of the October version. I will be addressing good faith in my reply, and let us all keep in mind that the context of this debate really revolves around the possibility of religious descrimination, or, just as damaging to the cause of the wikipedia community, the appearance of it. Please reply to this, and mention here on the discussion page a couple things that you heard of or know about that he was involved in that could be characterized as somewhat positve.

NOTE:For an example of a wikipedia intro for a controversial religious figure, see the Pat Robertson article--that intro is very similar to the October version). 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

I am aware of his ambassador of peace role. The intention was not to simply delete your lead section. I would have preferred to rebuild toward that section (with the citations which were I'm afrain I have to missing in both versions). I suggest the following. Take the October 31 version [2] and take out any parts that you feel that are offending or not relevant. We then start with this base version and start to put in proper citations. Once that is done, we can start to build it up. Is that ok? I know it will go somewhat slowly especially as there are time zone differences but I would prefer that things are agreed upon as we build. --RelHistBuff 08:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to take a look at the Oct 31st version and will get back to you ASAP--I'm not sure what your referring to. I'm leaving early this morning on a trip--I'll be back late Monday night. Unfortunately I will have to put all this on hold for a few days. I do apologize. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady:

No problem, I can wait. In fact, a better version than the Oct. 31 version to start with is the one where I already deleted the conversion experience and media empire clauses. Click here to get that version. Then go ahead and edit it and remove any other offending parts (for example the scandal parts). Once we have a stripped-down minimum version we agree upon, then we should start putting in inline citations (for example from his autobiography). This will stabilise it. --RelHistBuff 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here'a an example of a positive accomplishment for the community. taken from the article on Joseph Tkach Jr.: "The famous, church-subsidized Ambassador Auditorium concert series". Other notable types of positive things about him that can be easily verified are his humanitarian efforts (He was heavily involved in the wiping out of iliteracy in Thailand), his motivational speaking invitations by major Japansese companies late in his life, the honors he had heeped on him from World leaders (he was awarded a special watch for his "contributions to world peace" given to him by the King of Belgium, one of ony four made form a WW I shell casing (the other three recipients were Davis Loyd George, George Clemanceau, and Marshal Foche--after they had recieved theirs, the King held on to the last watch for several decades before he encountered Armstrong), and his surprisingly intimate frienships with several prominent world leaders, including the King of Thailand, Anwar Sadat, and the Mayor of Jerusalem. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

OK, I didn’t see the link. The version you suggest to start a rebuild with, the October 31 version, is the one I so strongly object to, and I'm not sure at this point why you are offering to begin with that version. I don’t see a need for a major rebuild of the Mid-October version. It all kind of strikes me as oddly nihilistic—destructive for no good reason. Correct me if I’m wrong, the third party didn’t have major criticisms for that version—certainly not issues that would involve a total rebuild from scratch.(I go into more detail on that below). I agree that more standard citations are needed and they will come.

Again, I am amazed at the proportion (%40 percent of the text?) of accusations (embarrassingly unsubstantiated and not even qualified in the text) and 'scandals" that made it into the version you posted, and the ridiculous, negative innuendo (Stanley Raider was robbed of the real credit for building the auditorium, "issues" with Armstrong's second wife, etc etc...)--not to mention the thinly veiled digs throughout, yet NOT A SINGLE MENTION of anything positive Armstrong was ever involved in. When you edited, you easily could have left the mention of such things there or splice things in elsewhere to at least balance out the article, and make it less embarrassing to the Wikipedia community, but did not.

Because of at least the strong "appearance" of religious discrimination manifested in the version you want to start with, I am decidedly more comfortable with starting from the Mid-October version, and then taking your input and try to work together in good faith. Good faith is assumed but trust can be broken at some pointcan it not?

My goal is to convince whomever I have to of the logic of this position.

I did ask you to specifically spell out your problems with the Mid-Oct version, and you never did, but instead brought in a third party as a hail-mary it appears. I have gotten into specifics extensively for the version you suggest. I am still waiting and, as I said, I’m willing to start from there, and have improvements in mind already—fine tuning largely based on the third party’s suggestions and that of others.

If you read the dialogue carefully between the third party and me, he (or she) did retreat from an unequivocal endorsement of beginning with the Oct 31 version. His only criticism of the mid-October is that it's a little religiously esoteric--which can be corrected easily and fairly--and that it's longer and therefore "easier" to start with the other; as for the length, I'm sure others will agree with me in thinking that using the comparative lengths of the articles as a basis for deciding which one to start with is kind of silly--the importance of the issue of length pales compared to the other issues here, as I've brought out, let alone the fact that the version we should start with is now already comparable in length now that I dramatically shortened The Church of God (Seventh Day) section. I would add that virtually all the religiously/historically esoteric material was in that section--but I will comb through the whole article and make changes.

I have a lot to say and catalogue concerning that version--the third party doesn't see how out of proportion the negativity in it is probably because he is not aware of all the honors Armstrong received, his humanitarian and cultural projects ("The famous, church-subsidized Ambassador Auditorium concert series"-see J.Tkach sr article), and his friendships with world leaders (yet the absence of any mention of this is so conspicuous because so many people do know about these). People familiar with the history of the WCG are also better able than a nuetral third party to see all its other biases and innaccuracies as a whole, and I will be happy to point all of them out to the Wikipedia authorities as we march through this process. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

I (the "third party") am a "he".

My suggestion boils down to starting with a concise version that contains only non-disputable facts. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't favor one version over the other (I found fault with both). Note that as a neutral third party, I am trying to avoid focusing on the article's content, and instead I'm trying to facilitate a resolution to the dispute by proposing ways to go about resolving it.

If jebbrady has strong objections to RelHistBuff's proposed starting point and if RelHistBuff can accept jebbrady's pared-down version as a starting point, then that could be a good starting point.

On the other hand, if a starting point cannot be agreed upon, how about an outline of the proposed headings of the article and the facts that would be presented under each heading (including the lead paragraph)? But first I'd like to see you both settle on a starting point in the edit history. -Amatulic 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add one last thought. I was at first confused as to why the third party sugested we start working together useing the October 31 version (yours), when considering the actual details of his critique of both versions. I could be wrong, but I realize now that because his goal was a quick resolution, and, given your "sense of ownership" of the Armstrong page, as he put it, the most likely way to achieve the quicK resolution is to suggest we start with your page. You seem to be acting as though you are now "negotiating" from a position of strength. Realize this; As we progress up the chain at wikipedia, toward higher offices of responsibility to the wikipedia community and reputation, the more your suggestion to destroy the current version and rebuild from yours will become awkward and unsavory. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

You are a he. OK. :o) You have been very patient with us. The outline idea is very fair... but oh so laborious. Please everyone keep in mind that I will be making refinements with your critiques in mind to the mid-oct version early next week when I return. The existance of some accusations against HWA can be brought into the narrative, but they have to be in proportion, taken with a grain of salt, and very responsible. We must tread very lightly there for reasons stated above about religious descrimination or the appearacne of it, and because all the accusations save one never even made it to a court of law, and the one that did was tossed out of court immediately (the recievership) All the accustions came only after the accusers were booted out of the church for immorality and breaking rules (ie.Garner ted, and the recievership crisis).

(The idea of unstable, disgrunteld ex-employees of corpotations or ex-communicated church (christian in general) members attacking there former institutions is so common it's almost mundane). 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

As I read it, RelHistBuff isn't advocating starting with the 31 october version to which you so strongly object, but rather to a revision as of 2006-12-18 which addressed two of your concerns in your prior debate before I came along. I imagine that one may not be much better from your point of view, but it is a change from the 31 October version, and RelHistBuff did welcome you to remove any offending parts. Would you at least give a try removing objectionable stuff until it's an acceptable starting point? -Amatulic 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As you said, the changes he made were small and merely requirements of good sholarship--It kind of reminds me of the film The Bridge Over the River Kwai, where the Japanese commandant of the prision camp, as a "gesture of good will", offered the beleagured British captives the Red Cross packages they were already entitled to. Seriously though, I'm afraid I have to decline that offer. Given everything I have brought out--especially the obvious appearance of flagrant religious discrimination in the edits overseen by Realhistbuff, it's clearly a question of principle and I beleive my solution occupies the higher ground on that level and others (including pragmatism: it's more efficient) And I see no need to destroy the mid-october article. Well, I have to run for now, not until Tuesday will I be able to respond to any postings. My apologies, gentlemen. 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady

While I'm gone for the weekend,Realhistbuff, you can in the meantime get started on the research into some of the more positive things Armstrong is said to have been involved in. The version you were supporting didn't list any. A great place to begin would be this,which I got from the article on Joseph Tkach Sr., Armstrong's succsessor: "The famous, church-subsidized Ambassador Auditorium concert series." 69.115.161.123 Jebbrady;

I believe Amatulic has come up with an interesting suggestion. If Jebbrady declines the offer of removing parts of my oct 31 version to come to a common starting point, then I am willing to let Jebbrady suggest his version and if he would kindly allow me to remove parts that I find objectionable, then we can reach a common starting point. However, please do not take the removal of the parts as equivalent to the word, "destroy". This is a point of disagreement so we would like to start on where we agree. Wikipedia is built on consensus. --RelHistBuff 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This offer seems quite reasonable to me. Jebbrady, I echo RelHistBuff's suggestion that you use your own preferred version as a starting point and allow RelHistBuff to excise portions he finds inappropriate. That way, what is left is a collection of facts that you both agree should be present in the article. You can expand from there.

Hopefully you can resolve your dispute this way. You may reach another impasse, but at that time you will at least have agreed on the core points, and you can then post an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles — not for judgement, but rather to get more people involved to establish a consensus. -Amatulic 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentleman, thank you for your patience. I've had an unusually hectic week and it's not over. Hang tight just a little longer. Thanks. 67.80.157.45 Jebbrady

Hi all, I was the first poster of this article in December of 02 before someone started to put in accusations and stuff like that. My original article and subsequent updates included some of his teachings or doctrine, is it possible to include some of them in this wiki again. I am so very happy that all of that has been now deleted. This is definately more of a biography now. Sincerely, jslevin.

This article was copied from: http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/mike_ep/exam/why_hwa.htm Originally posted by: By D. M. Williams Exit & Support Network™

Exit & Support Network™ 
January 6, 2001 
Last updated April 12, 2013

into the apostles of Christ" (II Cor. 11:13).

~Proverbs 24:19-20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)