Archive1 summary

The article Charles Taze Russell is currently the subject of an edit war between Pastorrussell and a consensus of other editors. Pastorrussell says that it is already neutral, on grounds of his special biographical knowledge as a member of the Bible Students and owner of the official Charles Taze Russell website Pastor-Russell.com. Others perceive the article as POV.

Specific issues arising from this Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1#NPOV Dispute include Pastorrussell's assertion that Bible Students are "in charge" of the article, repeated removal of an NPOV tag, and repeated reverts of references to Jehovah's Witnesses in the biographical introduction.

K. posted a Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Religion, but worsening disagreement led to Robert McClenon initiating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, which is ongoing and supported by other editors. Tearlach 17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

MATERIAL BELOW THIS POINT IS ARCHIVED - PLEASE DO NOT EDIT

NPOV Dispute

As has been stated so many times before, this article is not neutral. It seems to quite clearly advocate Russell and his teachings, and downplay his role in the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses, who today publish the magazine he started. This is no disrespect to PastorRussell, just the opinion of myself and several others. If you wish to make edits, please mention what you will change here; hopefully then we can avoid an edit war. --K. 02:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, PastorRussell has removed the NPOV dispute tag. Please talk about it before doing something like that. Wikipedia is about collaboration, so if you don't agree, speak up about it. Explain why you think the NPOV is unwarranted, and then everyone can discuss it. --K. 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should talk about it BEFORE adding the NPOV tag. You are the only person who disputes the article as a whole. But if you 'rally the troops' you will get other JWs to oppose some facets, but just because you are a larger group does not make you more accurate or appropriate in your actions. Bible Students will defend Pastor Russell's life, ministry, legacy, and character to the nth degree. This is an issue of defending truth against opinions, points of view which are not backed up by historical facts, and false accusations. PastorRussell 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I had spoken about it several times. As had Schrodingers Catsup and D. --K. 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The only dispute by Schrodingers Catsup was in regards the Death and Aftermath, and he and I, in a gracious and friendly way, worked it out and both designed a neutral paragraph which was factually correct, and historically accurate. There is no neutrality issue on this *article*, although there may be some statements that some would like to see a little different. More importantly, it is factually and historically WRONG to say that Pastor Russell founded "Jehovah's Witnesses" because he most certainly did NOT, and this is established by several publications. He founded the IBSA, the WTB&TS, and the PPA. The movement currently known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" was established and so named by Joseph Rutherford in Columbus, Ohio in 1931. I am happy to work with you on the statements in the article you believe are historically inaccurate, or violate neutrality. We have had several individuals proofread the article, and all statements violating neutrality were changed. Your issue, as you state in your first post above, is that Pastor Russell founded Jehovah's Witnesses. That is positively wrong, and is in fact, a violation of the very neutrality you are claiming to defend. Bible Students are in charge of this article, and are happy to discuss and view information about historical facts, or the addition of other events in Pastor Russell's life. Much has been left out else the article would be much, much longer. But, bottom line, your opinion regarding Pastor Russell founding the JWs is factually and historically incorrect, and to include such a statement in the article would violate neutrality, because it's a false statement, and merely a point of view. PastorRussell 19:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious you feel quite strongly about the content of this article. But it must be said that no one is "in charge of this article". That statement goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Everyone has a right to edit articles.

To demonstrate why I think that the article does need a NPOV tag, let's examine just one part of the first sentence. It says that Russell was "a Protestant minister in the tradition of Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther, John Wesley and William Miller." That is POV. As far as I know, it is not generally accepted by historians that Miller or Russell were "in the tradition" of Luther. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article, not because I agree or disagree, but it is an opinion that isn't backed up by a reputable source. --K. 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you more than disagree, and this is what we should attempt to focus on. Doing so will help us work together. There may be some isolated statements that could be better worded, but the whole of the article is quite sound an neutral. In the case of the statement regarding Reformation leaders, depending upon what source is used, Wesley, Miller and Russell are all seen to have been significant Protestant Reformation leaders. On the other hand, if one is only relying on 'accepted wisdom' then none of those three were significant. How about simply saying "a Protestant minister in the tradition of the Reformation" - removing the three names? PastorRussell 06:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Frankly, I think the whole sentence has to go. For most of his life, Russell didn't belong to a Protestant church, and since the Reformation was in the 16th century (see Protestant Reformation), I don't see what grounds there are to include those statements. --K. 10:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Protestant is any individual or group that either opposes the Roman Catholic Church, or actively encourages separation from them. Pastor Russell deemed the creeds, created by the Catholic Church, to be errors and 'traditions of men'. This makes him, so to speak, a Protestant's Protestant. The entire set of principles associated with Protestantism, as a movement, was that ordination was of God, and not of man. This is why there are so many denominations within Protestantism. Each recognizes the 'ordination', if you will, of their own movement, but would not (especially from 1878 through 1916) recognize the ordination from another Protestant denomination. The "Reformation" has been variously dated as starting from as early as Peter Waldo and John Wycliffe, through in the 16th century, and continued to the days of John Wesley. Had alteration and change ended there, Wesley would have been referred to as the 'last reformer'. However, Pastor Russell rose up and threw Christendom into theological chaos. His focus was withdrawal from "Babylon", a return to the Bible as the sole word of God (sola scriptura) and the only source of unmerited grace (sola fide), and elimination of nearly ALL practices adopted by Protestants which originated from Rome. This made him, so to speak, a Reformer's Reformer. Pastor Russell, therefore, was a "Protestant minister in the tradition of the Reformation. This fact, and statement, is used in at least one Master's thesis that I am aware of, and a couple doctorate dissertations. One may also find it in other texts, published and unpublished. If you somehow disagree even after reading the above historical and factual data, please propose your own wording and let's work it out together, then when we finish it, we can post it. This is how "Schrodingers Catsup" and I worked out the issues over the "Death and Aftermath" section. He took about two weeks before getting back to me, but had we discussed it every day, we could have completed it in about four to five days. PastorRussell 16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Protestant isn't "any individual or group that either opposes the Roman Catholic Church, or actively encourages separation from them", as that definition would make any religion that proselytises Protestant, including Ba'hai and Islam.

I think Wiktionary sums it up best: "A denomination of Christianity that separated from the Roman Catholic church based on theological or political differences." - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protestant

Russell didn't separate from the Roman Catholic Church-- he actually disagreed with common Protestant teachings of the time, such as hellfire. Interestingly, Answers.com says a Protestant is "a member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli." (http://www.answers.com/protestant&r=67). Russell definitately deviated from the theologies of those men. As such, I don't think it is accurate to say that he was a "Protestant minister". --K. 02:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not historically correct. A Protestant IS any Christian group separated from Catholicism, and advocating a break from the doctrines held by them. The Reformation is variously dated and has even included Peter Waldo and John Wycliffe. The Waldenses and Wycliffites were certainly not groups fitting into your definition, but fit into the standard definition, which I follow. Pastor Russell was a Protestant minister. To deny that is to deny the very basis of Protestantism. PastorRussell 07:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you point me to a reference work that uses your definition? I can't find a definition of Protestant that agrees with you. --K. 05:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for adding the NPOV tag back on. For example, the phrase "controversial election" in the "death & aftermath" section isn't correct according to some sources, but it is to Bible Students. Therefore, it can't possibly be a neutral point of view whether it's true or not. I'm making an edit to drop the word "controversial" and probably a few other things. Why that word keeps getting added back in, is beyond me. --D 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, D. Please cast your vote below.--K. 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The election was controversial because of what happened. It is not a point of view or interpretation. Joseph Rutherford broke the law and illegally disbanded the Board of Directors on a technicality he dreamt up, and which would have equally applied to himself. His actions created great controversy, and there are documents in existence that show Rutherford purposfully orchestrated events to happen exactly as he wanted them. Therefore, to use the word "controversial" is not a subjective term. The election WAS controversial, and nearly then entire Board of Directors, inidividuals at Bethel, and the Classes throughout the area were up in arms over what was going on. As word spread, there was an active effort to reclaim proper control of the Society. Because Rutherford was a clever lawyer, and had control of key resources he was able to make it appear as though he was the savior and those questioning or oppossing him were the enemy. The controversy was established in 1917, and is not a modern subjective interpretation. To report it as controversial fits with the historical facts. PastorRussell 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, according to JW's the election was NOT controversial in any way. Correct or incorrect, this shows it's not a historical fact since not all agree on whether it occurred that way or not. It's a viewpoint of the election, therefore it has to be left out. Doesn't this make sense to you? --D 15:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote for reinsertion of NPOV dispute tag

Rather than comments back and forth, I think it's easier if we simply have a vote. If any one supports or objects to the NPOV tag being reinserted, please insert your name below:

• For:
  • K.
  • --D 15:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • --Robert McClenon 11:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Against:
• Abstained:

Please either vote for or against, or abstain. Please do not vandalise the process. --K. 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy is the very thing I have been expressing to you:

"If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue."

I asked that we DISCUSS the matter and work together to come to an agreement acceptable to all. Taking a vote is not the proper process, and in reality will make no difference. I kindly proposed we discuss the matter and work together to come up with a compromise.. If you are now saying that you are unwilling to do this then I (we) will go forward with making sure the article stays as it is, and will defend the historicity, and neutral factual data contained in the article. To go so far as to say that Pastor Russell was not a Protestant nor a minister is ridiculous in the extreme and shows ignorance of history. Any changes made that are not agreeable to the facts will be reverted to their original form. If you are choosing to not work together, and if you push the matter, then we will work without you, and defend the truth, even to the point of using the courts and television, if necessary, because we have original source documents backing up the truth. The alternative is for you to leave this alone, and move on. We will not relent from doing what is right, and not permitting any jesuit, activist, misled JW (as oppossed to an honest one), or cult watcher from pushing their way in to corrupt the truth. PastorRussell 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to continue the discussion, but simply think that as many before me have voiced concerns about the neutrality of the article, we should vote on inserting the NPOV dispute tag. I think once that's the tag is restored, then more people will be involved, and work on the article will proceed more quickly.

In accord with the policy you state, I stopped editing the article when it became apparent that you would revert each change I made. The vote I propose is only related to insertion of the NPOV tag, as you have mentioned several times that no-one other than myself thinks the article in POV. A simple vote will clearly establish that, and is Wikipedia practice to vote on such matters.

As for your bizarre comments about "if you push the matter, then we will work without you, and defend the truth, even to the point of using the courts and television", I am at a loss as to how to respond.

I really think the vote is the best way to resolve the NPOV issue, and think we can also discuss the content of the article separately. --K. 09:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not at a loss to respond to the threat of legal action. It violates Wikipedia policy, which states: "Do not make threats of legal action." If the Bible Students have original source documents presenting the truth, then they have every right to develop their own copyrighted article and publish it on their own web site or in book form, but not in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 21:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What you are doing is wrong, and violates Wikipedia policies. It also violates personal ethics. To attempt to change historical facts in order to favor one side or another is wrong. The facts presented in the article are exactly that, facts. The events happened, and are not skewed to one view or another. If a person sneezes, it is a fact they sneezed. If they sneezed at 12 o'clock on a Friday afternoon after walking home from a grocery store, each of those items is a fact. It is important for this article to be neutral. The way that can happen is through discussion, but the majority of the article requires no changing because each item is documented in source material. Any JW or "cult-watcher" who attempts to change this article will be changed right back. The dangers of having a freely editable article is that anyone who wants to say "Pastor Russell was an elephant, and had three noses" can do so. Are those facts? No, they are not. What if the person says they can prove it? How far do we go to "prove" something that goes against accepted wisdom, and documented activity? It is important to keep this article truthful, and not quibble over small items, nor to debate things such as claiming Pastor Russell was not a Protestant. Subjective ideas are not truth. Documented facts are. No vote or debate can change that. Your constant references to "many others", etc... is clearly an attempt to justify your ends. There are not "several" anything. There was only one other person who disagreed with the use of the word "controversial" in the Death and Aftermath section. The word was removed, and the idea put in such a way that both of us could agree on. So, that leaves only you to disagree. You are free to do so, and I have no problem with you disagreeing. What I do have a problem with is your attempt to completely change the entire article, question established facts and replacing them with outrageously false and subjective ideas. If you want to change something, discuss it! I honestly believe we can work together on this! I'm not oppossed to cooperation, but it almost seems like you are. Leave it at that, and let's work together rather than quibbling. Make a valid suggestion for change and we can debate how to put it in a way both can agree upon, and then our discussion is fruitful. i.e. 'sentence so-and-so uses the word 'blah blah', how about using 'xyz' instead?' Then I reply and say 'that's a good idea' or 'how about thus-and-so' and we work together. That is an efficient and productive system. PastorRussell 16:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article should not be altered to favor Jehovah's Witnesses since they no longer hold to Pastor Russell's views doctrinally, prophetically, or organizationally. If the opening paragraph is to be altered it should be completely neutral, as was discussed. To make it favorable to JWs violates the entire principle we have been debating. The only part of the current opening paragraph that may not be seen as neutral is the last part regarding the extent of Pastor Russell's works. I'm referring to the part starting with "In 1908" through to "Protestantism and Western culture". I can agree to that part being cut since, although factual, could be seen as almost an 'advertisement' of Pastor Russell. PastorRussell 13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Notice to PastorRussell

Wikipedia is a collaborative medium. You do not own this article. Others have commented that this article is not NPOV, is not well written and avoid certain key facts. You have repeatedly remove NPOV and Copyedit notices. Please stop and allow others to voice their opinion that the article needs work. --K. 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now going to insert a NPOV disputed tag, because as Schrodingers catsup and D have noted, the NPOV of this article is disputed. Even if you disagree, let the community decide; don't just unilaterally revert honest edits. --K. 01:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a collaborative medium. Several worked on the article. It is very well written, factual, and historically accurate down to the smallest detail. Based on your posts and efforts so far, it is clear that you seek to add information which is historically incorrect, and violating the very neutrality you claim to be defending. Since it is collaborative, any factual errors will be cleaned up by Bible Students who ARE in charge of Pastor Russell's life and legacy since we are the only ones who have a direct linkage to him, have all of the original historical documents, and the closest tie to him. I am willing to work with you, but your stubborn attitude results in an equally stubborn response as we are defending the truth of Pastor Russell's life, ministry, and character. PastorRussell 20:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of the NPOV dispute tag is to highlight to others that the neutrality of the article is disputed, which it is for this article. Here is a list of people who have voiced concerns about the neutrality of this article in the talk page:

• User:Nardman1
• User:Schrodingers_catsup
• User:Devon
• User:Godlydesires
• User:George_m

I think it is clear that the neutrality of this article is disputed, so the tag is appropriate, and was not unilateral. --K. 01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Each of the usernames you quote represent individuals with isolated concerns, not opposition to the entire article, or belief that it is violating neutrality. Some of the concerns are valid, and some are not. PastorRussell 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you go through the history of the talk page and see what each of them wrote, you will see quite clearly that that is not the case. In addition, you do not have to right to judge which of their concerns are valid and which aren't. That is not in line with the tenets of Wikipedia. --K. 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do. Considering the Last Will & Testament was violated, and that Bible Students are the only group on the face of the earth who have a continual legacy back to Pastor Russell, with the exception of a few individuals, the majority of those who worked with and associated with him split from the Society due to Rutherford's activity, especially when, in 1927, he stated in the pages of the Watch Tower that Pastor Russell was not the 'faithful and wise servant'. My point is not regarding the interpretation, but merely to state that the statement in the article resulted in the majority leaving. As things progressed through the 1920s more and more left. The only direct line leading back to Pastor Russell are today associated with the Bible Students. We study from the "Studies in the Scriptures", we print and distribute the volumes, we print and distribute the "Reprints of the Watch Tower 1879 to 1916" (1917 - 1919 removed), we note the remarkable fulfilments of Bible prophecies expounded upon by Pastor Russell, and our congregations ("Ecclesia's", taken from the Greek) and associated elders, etc... are organized using the same principles outlined in the Bible and expounded upon in volume six. We use advertisements, radio programs, television programs, and other mediums to spread the message Pastor Russell spread in his lifetime, using the very same points of view. The Watchtower society gave up on all those things by the end of Rutherford's life in 1942. In fact, nearly all were disposed of by the year 1931 when he presented the idea of using a new name to distinguish from the Bible Students who had split off and still using the volumes. My point is the only direct line from Pastor Russell to today is found amongst the Bible Students. We have the records and documents. We have the descendents. We have the stories from those who have died within the past 30 years, etc... JWs have no link other than by name. Cult-watchers want to unfairly represent Pastor Russell and Bible Students. Other groups want to remove his memory entirely. The article may contain a few statements which could be changed, but 90% of it is neutral and sound. It appears some of the encoding and scripting needs changing in order to be 'wikified', but that can be done easily. Bible Students have decided to stand up for Pastor Russell's legacy now that it continuing to be sullied by JWs and other groups. PastorRussell 18:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV notice

User:PastorRussell/User:Pastorrussell: Please stop removing the NPOV notice. Several Wikipedians have voiced support for keeping the tag, as evidenced by the vote above. Several other issues have been raised about the article, including possible Wikipedia:copyvio of your own biography on pastor-russell.com, statements made without references, and omission of information about Russell easily found by a Google search.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please remember that you are far outnumbered in your views that the page is neutral, factual (supported by references) and well-written (see Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#An_Outside_Opinion). Comments posted in the last couple of days make it clear that your views do not represent the general consensus, and so you act unilaterally when removing the NPOV tag. Please desist from removing it. --K. 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Death and Aftermath

it seems to me that the article very much is advocating his teachings, instead of being fair and neutral. Someone should rewrite it. Schrodingers catsup 12:35, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is the details dealing with the aftermath of Russell's death. It is extremely biased towards the historical viewpoint of the Bible Students, totally disregarding the point of view of the Jehovah Witnesses. It is not by any stretch of the imagination "unbiased." It must be changed before the NPOV can come down. Schrodingers catsup 07:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no bias to the aftermath of Russell's death. The facts of history are not a bias. If this article were to contain the "point of view" of everyone who wanted then it would be 100 pages long. Our effort here is an accurate account of the ministry and history of an American MINISTER. As a result, the entry is going to be about religion, and contain religious thoughts. The aftermath of h is death was published in some newspapers, and is represented exactly as we have it here. The whitewashing of history is not history at all. We are seeking accuracy and truth, not a "point of view". PastorRussell 08:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being that Jehovah's Witnesses have a totally different view of what happened, then this isn't a neutral point of view. To me, it also comes across with a negative tone to it, which suggests biasedness. I'll write something up that's more clear and presents both views, and post it soon.--D 4 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Ok, I updated it. It's much shorter 'cause I removed much of the doctrinal changes mentioned, because I felt it was beyond the scope of the article (or at least this section). I think it's a fair write up that gives straight facts without sounding like I'm trying to convince anyone of a certain view of what happened. "Facts" I couldn't confirm without debating, I felt don't have a place here. I removed the NPOV link, as I do think this is a neutral explanation.--D 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

I agree that your write-up was more neutral and agree with much of it. However, some of the wording needed to be changed from pro-JW to an even more neutral and factual state. The current paragraph accurately and fairly represents the facts as they exist. PastorRussell 18:05, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree. I made some changes, splitting the paragraph into two and editing some wording that was a bit pro-Bible Students. It might still need a little more cleanup, but I think between the two of us, we'll get this good-n-neutral and a worthwhile read for everybody. :) --D 6 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

And I just did a couple of minor edits, making the first mention of Jehovah's Witnesses into a link, and the first mention on the page of International Bible Students (which is in the first paragraph) is now also a link. There seems to be no Wikipedia page for the Bible Students, so I had to link to their actual site. --D 6 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Dividing it into two paragraphs looks good. There is no link for "International Bible Students" because the IBSA no longer exists in its original form, and the website you linked it to is merely one of dozens of Bible Student websites, thus the link doesn't fit. Other than removing that link, the only words I put back in were "controversial election process" which accurately and factually states what happened without going into specifics. PastorRussell 11:30, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful that we can cooperate like this. I realize that Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned with the way things went in 1917, and that they must rely on the Proclaimer's book for most of the info. It does add to the mix. However, Bible Students, such as myself, who have access to all of the original documents (including those from Rutherford) are few in number. In fact, I believe I am only one of two who has a complete library of all correspondance, articals, booklets, etc. This allows me to eventually put it online for all to investigate so one may make their own decision as to what happened, and then to follow their conscience when they realized what happened. Nobody is perfect, but Jehovah loves us all if we have a pure heart. PastorRussell 15:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute your actions

With all due respect, the holders of Pastor Russell's legacy are those who have the closest and most direct link to him, not "cult-watchers", Jehovah's Witnesses, or anyone else. Bible Students in responsible positions are taking a stand to reclaim the good name of Pastor Russell all over the internet. However, to accomodate the concerns of a few, I have removed the doctrinal/scriptural conclusions and replaced it with a simple link, should the reader be interested in reading further. The history of Pastor Russell's work is inherently of a religious character, and no matter what anyone does or says this cannot be changed. History is history, and any attempt to revise or censor it does a disservice to his ministry, and the wide world-reaching affect it had. As a historian I can appreciate these facts more than most. Pastor Russell 07:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

with all due respect, the article overall shows a large bias to the Bible Student view, while giving little heed to the Jehovah Witness view. It is not a fairly written, non-objective article. There is a clear bias. Schrodingers catsup 07:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. There is not "Jehovah's Witness" view nor a "Bible Student" view. Facts are facts, and they cannot be whitewashed. One may offer an interpretation of history from a biased point of view, but if the reality demonstrates otherwise, then that interpretation is incorrect. Bible Students are the ones who have held the banner for the ministry of Pastor Russell, while Jehovah's Witnesses, The Worldwide Church of God, and other groups tied to Pastor Russell's ministry have moved on and away from him. We have the closest lineage, all of the documentation, and the strongest case legally and ethically. PastorRussell 08:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you claim, but that is only your opinion. I'm sure that a Witness would claim that they are closer to his teachings then your orgainization is, and that they are carrying his banner. We must make this article so that it is acceptable to Bible Students and Jehovah Witnessess, and that a person uneducated