I suggest this be taken to the RfC Talk page - Tearlach 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted numerous times to discuss the matter with "Konrad West", but this gentleman refuses to cooperate. As you can see from my posts, I have been kind, generous, and attempted compromise numerous times. Instead of working with me, he has chosen to go on a campaign which is unfortunately misleading users into believing he is extremely neutral and only wishing to do the right thing. In reality when he has made alterations, they have been biased toward JWs and not by any means neutral. If neutrality is what we are attempting to work towards, then let's work together to reach that goal. I'm in favor of it, not opposed to it! It's not going to happen while Konrad is advertising the issue as though this poor little article is being injured by mean little me. It would be inappropriate to attach the name of "Jehovah's Witnesses" to an article about Pastor Russell in the introduction. If it is to be mentioned at all, it should be in a different part of the article. In fact, it is already mentioned in the Death and Aftermath section, which is where it belongs in a documentary article. If you believe the article is unfairly supportive of a Bible Student view, please consider the fact that there is nothing mentioned about Bible Students until the very same location in the article. Why this entire situation has even happened is beyond me. I have bent over backwards trying to work with this man, but he has done great injury to the situation by creating what is, or has been, going to result in an editing war. As a side point, just because a certain statement is made in an other resource does not mean such formulas or words should be used here. Many, if not all, encyclopedia entries were made by Jehovah's Witnesses at the request of the encyclopedia's editor, not knowing that there was another significant group who would disagree with certain claims. In fact, actions such as those have resulted in Bible Students publishing and circulating the booklet "Pastor Russell not the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses". The booklet goes into detail about the 1917-1931 split of 75% of the membership, and the current activities of the organization which go entirely contrary to the life and ministry of Pastor Russell. So, again, I propose that we work together on this article, discuss how certain things should look, and decide together what is acceptable to all, not just Konrad, who wants it to be pro JW (which is proven by his comments and past edits). Thank you for your time. PastorRussell 16:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad West is not the only user who has had issues with the article. So has Tearlach, who has no apparent interest in the Jehovah's Witnesses, and is primarily an unpaid public servant of the Wiki community. So has Robert McClenon, who is not a Protestant. You write: "As you can see from my posts, I have been kind, generous, and attempted compromise numerous times." I agree othat you have been kind. Whether you have been generous is a POV. You have attempted what you consider to be compromise, but Wikipedia has its own standards of compromise. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. " You have disregarded Wikipedia policy by removing NPOV tags that had been put on the article 5 times in 24 hours, which violates the 3-Revert Rule. You also violated Wikipedia by asserting that Bible Students have control of the article. No user/editor of Wikipedia has control of an article.

You write: "I propose that we work together on this article, discuss how certain things should look, and decide together what is acceptable to all, not just Konrad". I agree, and not just you or Bible Students. In order for the article to be acceptable to all, you will have to work with others, just as others will have to work with you.

You could start by filling in a few vital issues to identify Pastor Russell's importance. The article states that he found that there were major errors in contemporary Protestant doctrine. What did he see as those errors? That is, how did his theology or interpretation of Scripture differ from that of other Protestant ministers of the time? The article states that he had a profound influence on Protestantism. What denominations did he influence? For instance, if he was previously affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and the Congregational Church, did he influence them, or did his influence consist primarily in the formation of new denominations? Can you provide a primary or secondary source for the extent of the sales of his works? Robert McClenon 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The users who disagree came in only after Konrad West began his crusade. Prior to that only one disagreement occurred, which was worked out. Then he came in and refused to work with me, and arbitrarily started editing and added an NVOP. The points you raise about Pastor Russell's importance, views on doctrine, etc... were in the original article, but removed because they were considered contrary to neutrality! This working in circles, and not accomplishing anything. I will return those sections in order to satisfy your queries, but someone else will complain it violates neutrality. So, we are now between a rock and a hard place. Nobody is working with each other, we are all tearing each other apart. Wikipedia states that BEFORE adding an NVOP all editing STOP and and discussion begin. That process was violated by Konrad West, and from that point on we have had nothing but trouble. My intent is for this article to be agreeable to all, but that requires sound, and intelligent discussion, including pointing out where the neutrality and POV areas are, and discussing an alternative wording. Then, we can put in our two cents and suggest that it is agreeable, or not, and then propose another wording, etc... etc... That is the way this should work. So far it hasn't gone that way. Let's try to work together. PastorRussell 20:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response, Pastorrussell, when I first visited this page I checked the history and saw that the NPOV dispute tag had been added by some users and then removed by you. In the history of the talk page it is clear that I was not the first user to have concerns about the neutrality. In fact, you had discussions with such users. I earlier listed for your benefit 5 users who had previously said the article wasn't neutral (see Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#Notice_to_PastorRussell) --K. 23:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really ought to be in the Talk page for the RfC.

One fundamental: I suggest all material going in, by any editor, has a cited source. I also suggest scrapping the whole article and starting again minus the assumption that the biography on your website is a canonical source about which we can quibble about phraseology - along with an unconditional agreement that the Bible Students don't 'own' or have charge of the article.

On the issue of affiliation, you might be interested in the saga of a recent similar dispute about the Philippine church Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), of which I caught the tail-end. The INC were in doctrinal dispute with another church, the Bereans, and the exasperating thing was, if you made any edit that didn't agree with the INC view, suddenly you were accused of being a Berean (even if you obvious hailed from the other side of the world and were ludicrously unlikely to be a member of a Philippine church). In short, assume good faith: many editors are not part of your religious feud.

On that basis, I give you two more examples:

Russell, Charles Taze, 1852–1916, founder of the movement whose followers are known as Russellites, as Bible Students, and (since 1931) as Jehovah's Witnesses - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

Russell, Charles Taze. U.S. religious leader who founded the International Bible Students Association, the forerunner of the Jehovah's Witnesses - Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2005

So we have three major mainstream reference sources that view Russell's organisations as precursor to the JWs. This view should be represented up front. Tearlach 21:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of them written by Jehovah's Witnesses of the Editorial Committee. As a result, they are biased. Please research the matter further and you will see that encyclopedia references are wrong to use here, and do not apply. PastorRussell 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encylopedias are generally excellent sources, as they are almost invariably well-researched and written by authorities on their respective subjects. You have many times stated that you have "original documents" which tell a different story about Russell, so it would really be much more productive if you shared them. For anyone to take seriously your suggestions that two respected encyclopedias are wrong you need to provide sources, not just tell people to research further. --K. 06:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please add language explaining how the Jehovah's Witnesses have misrepresented the teachings of Pastor Russell.

Please do not remove any more NPOV banners. That really does violate Wikipedia policy. There is a consensus, whether for right or for wrong, that the article is not neutral.

The major problem that I see is that you have violated a basic rule on revert wars. There is a consensus that the article is not neutral. You think that it is. The rest of us, including non-Protestants, think that it is. It does not matter to me whether Russell was a heretic. I think that he was, and he had the right to be a heretic under the First Amendment. I think that the Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics, and they have that right under the First Amendment. There is dispute as to the teachings of Pastor Russell.

DO NOT remove the NPOV banner again.

We are trying to discuss the issue with you. You need to discuss it with some of us. Robert McClenon 02:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a definition or link? See: Internet troll and Wikipedia:Troll Stirling Newberry 19:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a troll whose activity is directed at pushing a POV? Tearlach 20:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because not all POV Warriors are, in fact, trolls. Stirling Newberry 22:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A distinterested observer, completely. I'm basically ignorant about the article's subject, JW, and other aspects of this dispute. That said, I'm becoming a dedicated Wikipedian, and what I see here troubles me. Here are some comments.

• No one who is a partisan should edit an article from an advocacy point of view.
• Wikipedians take a dim view of statements that mainstream encyclopedias or other factual sources are unqualified to be cited because the persons who prepared them are known advocates for a hostile POV.
• NPOV tags should NEVER be removed without broad consensus.

I agree. This has happened often enough that I think it should become a policy. Robert McClenon 11:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• An encyclopedia article about a man you admire or revere is bound to be disappointing to you in some small or even large way. As much as I wish not to discourage anyone from participating, if you are such a devotee of a particular religion or movement, and you are constantly battling other editors because you don't want them to touch an article based on your own private sources, you should probably heave a sigh, leave Wikipedia, devote your energies to producing advocacy web pages.
• A dispute about which group is the true descendant of a founder of a movement occurs with almost all such movements; see Ayn Rand and Objectivism for one example. While it's important to use NPOV language when discussing opposing groups, you can't expect to remove discussion of how a certain group is related to the original founder's group or movement. Even if the founder says explicitly, "that group is not to be considered descended from my movement" the group may in fact claim it. Sometimes two such groups spend a lot of energy discrediting each other. Wikipedia articles don't award "true follower" status to just one group when the other also has valid claims.
• Finally, I think the article is just too long. It should be a biographical sketch, not the definitive discussion of every relevant idea. Maybe compromise could be easier by the removal of entire sections.

Good luck to all. DavidH 06:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell seems to be using User:PastorRussell to make edits, where previously he only used it for discussion. I suppose this should be mentioned in the RfC. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the signature. There's currently no edit history for PastorRussell (talk · contribs). He has made some edits as 71.65.65.165 (talk · contribs). Tearlach 12:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]