Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Collecting Tithes and the Charlatan angle

Continuing the thought from above citing Wikipeidia's WP:V policy, emphasis mine:

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

One editor has directly insinuated through a Time magazine obituary and her interpretation of a co-worker letter coinciding with his wife's death that Armstrong was financially manipulating WCG membership, including "many of whom were poor". We can agree that this is an "exceptional" claim. A Time magazine obituary of a couple dozen words, thrown in amongst many obituaries (as this was) with little or no editorial oversite is an "exceptional source".

Third Party Experts

If any editors might be tempted to quote a third party "cult expert" off the street to support the financial manipulation view angle (suggesting charlatanism), there is going to be a major debate, and those who take up that side in it are going to get creamed. Here's why...

There are five major reasons--five major points to make here. First, consider that tithing is biblical, and Armstrong espoused no doctrines he did not support thoroughly and honestly from the Bible--though religious leaders (whom he indirectly but openly criticized) have of course contested his Bible views. So tithing, as an Old and New Testament institution, was consistent with his Bible-centered theology. And of course members read the literature before being allowed to join, and were free to except this Bible based system or not join. As far as offerings, the Holy Days require offerings by biblical statute--no amount of money is specified, and these Holy Days were intrinsic to Armstrong's beliefs about the gospel as they are "a shadow of the gospel"--a picture of God's plan--according to Armstrong's Bible Correspondence Course (Armstrong saying that the Holy days shadow the gospel may at first sound incongruous and suspicious to those predisposed toward suspicion, but it is a belief he thoroughly expounded upon, and one held also by first century Christians in Palestine, as echoed by one ancient historian Armstrong cited [I'll track that citation down]). His gospel centered on obedience to God being an absolute must, and so the principle of tithes and offerings were completely consistent with his view on Christian religion--the gospel.

Second, the tithes were used to give the literature for free, without follow up solicitation. The church had no income outside of tithes and offerings because it deliberately did not silicate such--famously--and did not market products--nor does the offshoot that owns his copyrights. You won't find a single instance where Armstrong did silicate from the general public. Armstrong, conversely did encourage members to give as they were able--for the well-off to share what they had accumulated as they prospered through putting into practice principles that parallel the famous Puritan work ethic and "Yankee ingenuity " of New England. The principle was "give"; first to God in faith, then God would give back more. Meanwhile, Armstrong appears to have sacrificed and worked hard to get the message out through a lot of very lean years personally during the 1930's, 40's and 50's, when the church was small. He partially described his long time poverty as being a special case--as an effort by God to help him unlearn his pre-conversion priorities on "worldly success" and wealth.

Third, Armstrong openly and consistently rejected the idea of evangelizing crusades or philosophies to convert the masses so popular in Christian churches. This cost the Church millions obviously. Watering down the rules and doctrines would have brought in still further millions in my view. He rejected evangelizing crusades vigorously and passionately--both in word and, in my estimation as the evidence indicates, in deed--and in fact the concept was central to the gospel message he brought: that God was going to save all who ever lived at a later time still in the future--that man's current civilization has been allowed bay God almost as an "aversion therapy" for a mankind that doesn't yet really know God. Thus this approach aruably cost the church many millions of dollars as it revolved around obedience rather than getting saved through faith alone, and included no evangelizing efforts in any traditional sense.

Lastly,consider the millions of dollars in tithes and offerings the Church abstained from collecting through the famous and unique non-open door policy for church membership, which Armstrong enforced throughout the almost 30 years of personal poverty when the church was tiny (from 1933 to the early sixties). The many thousands of people who called the church to express their desire to attend it can testify that they were told about this policy, and that a minister would eventually contact them to see if they read and understood the literature thoroughly. Many people would become offended and never come back--perhaps thousands. Armstrong did his utmost to make sure the ministry did not jump the gun with inviting people during this process. Many were rejected because they didn't agree with doctrine and preferred their own. The non-open door policy teaching was based on a many scriptures referred to almost ubiquitously in Armstrong's literature--especially John 6:44--where Jesus was quoted by John saying "no man can come to me except the Father draw him." This obviously was the opposite of trying to gain members to enlarge the financial coffers. Further, all who attended, rich or poor, did it voluntarily and almost had to plow their way in, as indicated. Lastly, people of wealth--architects, businessmen, and other professionals were routinely given the boot for "causing divisions" or for not adhering to the moral teachings and standards of the Church, thus costing the church, in each case, thousands of dollars per year in the lost tithes and offerings referred to by lisasmall. Of course a cursory study of the current Wikipedia article could have revealed to all that this money was spent on sending out tens of millions of copies of the churches literature free of charge (5 million copies of The United States ans Britain in Prophecy alone), as well as on major humanitarian projects around the world that garnered the attention of more than a few heads of state (combating illiteracy etc)to name a just few expenses--see the article.

(the following was added 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady) Lastly, consider the logic in this quote from B. Thiel, Ph.D., former Worldwide church of God member:

“If(Armstrong) had been in it for the money, one would have expected him to retire at some point and live off what he had accumulated. Instead, he continued to make telecasts until shortly before he died at age 92, visited 70 nations to proclaim the gospel after he was of retirement age and pushed himself relentlessly to get the gospel out.”

These five points show the dramatic impact a little research and logic can have on a controversial subject like this--a subject in which with passions are running hot but cold reason runs aside.

Again, either a religious leader is sincere or he is a charlatan. There is no in-between. An article cannot just insinuate the latter. Nor can it have it both ways. Administrators at Wikipedia will have to make a decision and I'm confident that justice will ultimately prevail. If material suggestive of insincerity and charlatanism are to be presented, the editor should present it openly and present the full case, and engage those who disagree with the credibility of the additions and sources cited in steady dialog, not running off after taking a few lumps in a spirited debate for lack of knowledge on the subject. Such accusations are really toward people's religion--after all, this is the article, along with one other-- that explains "Armstrong's" religion, kept by many people. It must be verified through clear, legitimate, overwhelming proof.

As familiar with his life as I am--including the famous receivership of the 1970's and accusations made by ministers who ended up hijacking the Churches doctrines and finances after Armstrong's death (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/8/prweb543867.htm)--I still see nothing even suggesting that Armstrong might possibly be insincere. This forum exists hash these things out. Let's use it. Jebbrady 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Frankly I find the concept of "either sincere or charlatan" is somewhat fallible in the first place. I do not see a good reason why (given the general irrationality and moodiness of people in general) one cannot be both in some ways. One may proclaim one thing but be tempted to milk it here and there for less noble purposes. I don't think presuming Herbert Armstrong to be one or the other and then writing the article in said vein does any service to readers. - jere 71.203.211.107 03:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the WCG collect syndication revenues from the radio programs? Nothing wrong with that per se, but is it 100% accurate to say "The church had no income outside of tithes and offerings..."

The sincere vs charlatan dialectic doesn't really hold up. There are many men who start off sincere but once they attain success they become seduced by sex, money, power in some combination. Need examples? David, Solomon, Saul, Josiah, Nicolas the Deacon... The balance of evidence suggests that HWA was plagued by the temptations common to all flesh from the beginning of his ministry and in the last two decades of his life he became like Eli, and was unable to control the lusts of his son, and to some degree, himself. Was he sincere? Sure. Did he do some really bad things. Yes. Cadwallader 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Beginnings of Ministry?

This section still didn't read right to me, containing some rather flimsy claims about who believed what when. It appears to have been rewritten to whitewash Armstrong against some perceived flaw (he had a doctrinal dispute with COG7 and left, what's so wrong with that?). I expanded it by citing two additional sources with different stories. You guys can clean or edit as you like - I figured too much info was a better place to start than not enough. (My computer burped while I was typing, though, so I had to save it a few times - sorry!!!) jere71.203.211.107 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jere,

I was the one involved with that section. I haven't altered what you just added.

I understand your point about "whitewashing", but my first take on the issue is that the original source cited which introduced the issue was both out of context and contradicted by other sources beside Armstrong himself--as the citations show.

But really the larger issue is that the edit in question is part of a larger controversy as to the overall direction of the article, an issue replete with much baggage; so keep in mind this one thing about the ministerial license being revoked: In a short article, criticized by administrators not for being too positive but for having too much narrative and for its "rambling" (see Edjohnson's comment above), such a detail is only worth including if it is suggestive of something larger and significant: in this case, that would be Armstrong engaging in a lifelong pattern of negative, hypocritical, "unchristian" behavior. In the absence of credible proof of such a theme in his life, I suggested a NPOV "controversy" section that can explore the veracity of criticisms and accusations of wrangling ministers.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia administrator Edjohnson stated above that he would like to see the article move away from the lumbering, unwieldy narrative and more into Armstrong's actual beliefs. So our section may not last long anyway.

Well, thanks for keeping the dialog going.

69.115.162.235 04:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Dialog Needed with Editor

There has been some very well reasoned good faith dialog amongst editors and administrators lately, but absent is any dialog with the editor who brought in the third parties and Administrators. Of course I've found this editor's additions and justifications to be problematic and taken a lot of time to explain why I think that, so I just want to take another crack at getting that editor to share their views on some of the points I've tried to make--to see if I can receive any direct feedback on specific points, a dialog which has failed to materialize.

I do realize that I played some hardball at times when it comes to lively debate. But this is not about personalities and need not be seen that way. My intent was to deter futile, time consuming wrangling in the future--in other words, I want to cut to the chase and inspire those who tend to approach Armstrong with suspicion of his sincerity to bring the best they have so we don't waste more time.

I honestly think I've made some excellent points--I hope the lack of dialog isn't ducking. We should hash out the issues. This posting is meant to establish dialog with the editor in question--to nudge them a little to comment directly on some of my points and rebuttals. I've had no success thus far but the person said they were hanging back for now.

I haven't been able to get a constructive exchange concerning my proposal for a section called "Controversy" in the article. I think my postings on Armstrong's allegedly abusing the members financially through his wife's death and the tithing system should easily bring some consensus as to the right way of approaching the issue of tithes and offerings.

To kick off some dialog,let's focus on the only hotly contested issue on this page right now--the only issue of contention I've had with the editor in question: the Time magazine obituary and the way it was set up.

Again this should not be about personalities, so let's get this dialog going the way it should.

Jebbrady 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

The biggest upside of a "Controversy" section would be this: We could take all the the questionable statements requiring further verification and list them there as "citation needed", making them easier to verify. For example, it shouldn't take much work to figure out the legitimacy of the Ramona/Divorce & Remarriage issue... - jere 71.203.211.107 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

I've tagged this because the entire article has been crafted almost exlusively from primary sources by a single-purpose account with an apparent bias to show Armstrong in only the best possible light. 24.4.253.249 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a secondary source that you believe should be included? EdJohnston 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine,[1] San Antonio Express-News,[2] Time again,[3] Winnipeg Free Press.(http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glpnews&search="garner%20armstrong"&img=\\na0012\6787985\41599135.html) 24.6.65.83 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to that The Telegraph,[4] Time again, [5] and Rick Ross has a large database of newspaper articles.[6][7] 24.6.65.83 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

from Jebbrady 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I didn't deal with your tag, but I was directed by an administrator (Jossi) to add the citations. You should look at the discussion dialog (going back three weeks should do it). You'll see that several postings effectively explode the idea that primary sources are automatically in violation of the sourcing policy for unique situations like this where 1) the subject is a religious leader, 2) where he has spelled out his theology in self-published literature, and 3) where the only good source for his early life and conversion--which occurred before he became famous--is his autobiography. Both Jossi and administrator Edjohnson are involved, and have not repudiated my application of the policy on sources. Read the postings and you'll see why.

I encourage you to read the posts on this page. There is a history of the article taking on a very heavy look of religious discrimination, and some of it was expressed with unsubstantiated hearsay concerning Armstrong that's been around for years and hotly disputed by close confidants and others. And realize the man represents a religion that is still adhered to by thousands of people.

I have proposed a section called "controversy" that deals with all of this in an NPOV and open way. I've received little response.

Thank you for the links. I'll check them out. They may help in building a section on controversy.

Hi again,

Yeah, the first two articles I checked out were good stuff. The articles catalog an important aspect of the overall controversy surrounding Armstrong: there was a power struggle while Armstrong spent large amounts of time abroad in the 1970's, and problems with ministers bubbled to the surface--including financial improprieties, at least the strong appearance in some cases. By 1980 or so he had cleaned house. As you and many editors here know, those factions are the ones who leveled all the accusations against Armstrong and would eventually change the doctrines of the church wholly over to mainstream evangelical doctrines, as explicated in Raising the Ruins[8](this is an article about the book). Though some names and faces changed, they systematically hid the doctrinal swing from members, and meanwhile collected their tithes and offerings. By 1990 they couldn't hide the transformation any more. It was the same corruption on both ends in different forms.

We do need more sources than just Raising the Ruins, though I believe it is a solid source (despite the obvious pro-Armstrong position).

Jebbrady 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, you shouldn't assume I haven't read the posts on this page. I wasn't going to say anything before, but since you've raised the issue, I urge you to please learn how to sign your posts and other tricks for using talk pages. Your practices here make it virtually impossible to make sense of this one. Especially confusing is your habit of placing your comments in the midst of somebody else's post. Also, you should really learn to be more succinct; your posts are far too long for the amount of substance they contain. Oh, and stop appealing to false authority; admins have extra abilities to edit and block users, but they are not considered the final word on the quality of sources and "failed to repudiate" is far from an endorsement. As far as your claims to a scholarly background, well, anybody can claim anything; I point you to the Essjay scandal.

This sentence in the lead is a perfect example of what's wrong with this article;

He later founded Ambassador College and the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, which promoted the arts, humanities, and humanitarian projects.<ref> ''Against the Gates of Hell'', Stanley R. Rader, pg 21</ref>

This is a case where primary sources should not be used. Rader has an obvious COI and the information about Armstrong's public activities should be available from reliable 3rd party sources. Sure, use the primary sources for claims that can't be included otherwise, but make sure they are worded to reflect this ("Armstrong claims" or "Rader writes") and don't use them for exceptional claims that should have reliable 3rd party citations. 24.6.65.83 06:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear user

You make a couple good points.

But I don't know who you are, so I don't understand your reference to me assuming things about you. You didn't sign your post, ironically.

The opening is very simple to rectify. There are other third party sources for it. I'm not sure why you assume I wrote it though.

Stanley Rader is definitely COI with financial problems in the ministry beneath Armstrong. For other issues, I think it depends. The photographs in his book are actually referenced fro Armstrong's meeting with major heads of state. No COI there.

I'm not sure what the remedy is for me signing my posts in a way that makes following the dialog difficult--if you have any suggestions, let me know. I disagree with you about your view that we should not post replies within "someone else's post. This page is filled with other people putting messages in posts I started. It's pragmatic for dialog.

I'm sorry you think my posts lack substance in relation to there length. However, the posts were not written for you specifically as an individual. Actually, I would love for them to be short. But often the debate is begun in a vacuum of context and knowledge, and my opinion makes sense only when bringing in additional information, facts, background, history etc. Note also that they are not planned out collectively like chapters in a manuscript for a book, looking to avoid any repetition. they are written for that moment, as if the editor I'm responding to etc will only ever read that post and one or two two other around it. I can't assume people are aware of all the facts. If I do, I blow a chance to persuade.

And yes, I am trying to persuade administrators, and ultimately with a controversy like this, they may have a dramatic impact--perhaps even the final say, from what I'm told. We should welcome that impact because it can help to solve tremendous good faith and POV problems.

As for my reference to my degree, If I remember right it wasn't declared by me at any point. I mentioned it in the context of explaining my previous tendency to rely on primary sources--as history majors will do--I understand Wikipedia's position on sources better now. That was my point. If I'm not shy about mentioning, you'll understand that I tend to be in the position of standing virtually alone like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington at times on this page, and attempts to change the tenor of the article has been attacked as 'degenerate' practices of scholarship. I'm not sorry about alluding obliquely to having knowledge and experience--especially when called out on it. But ultimately over time people will see that my evaluation of source material is of a high quality--and if that proves I have a degree or doesn't, I couldn't care less.

Jebbrady 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

(reset indent) Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I did sign my post, at the end with just four ~, as that page indicates - not at the beginning as you did in your first post to this section, not with a hand-typed repetition of the username as you do with just about every post. Don't mistake not using an account for not signing one's posts. TPG are much less firm than they used to be, but interruptions of another editors posts are still discouraged - "In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption."

Likewise, pointing out a specific problem does not equate to assuming you placed it there. Pics, in this case, may show that a meeting took place but are not very good at documenting why, and if the meeting took place to recognize Armstrong for his work with the church then Rader has a COI in any circumstance. I also point you to this line in the TPG - "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." This is in direct contrast to your statement, "I make no apology that my aim is to win the debate in the arena of editorial legitimacy...A religious leader is either a charlatan or is sincere--there is no in between...The tone of the article cannot have it both ways. Therefore Wikipedia ultimately has a decision to make: Is it fair and legitimate to characterize this religious figure as a 'Charlatan', or will it instead be as a religious figure who was 'sincere, but disliked by some.'" It is not for 'Wikipedia' to choose which characterization will prevail. We are to present an article that lays out information gleaned from reliable 3rd party sources and let the reader make their own decisions. Others have commented on your apparent bias; until you accept that this site is not a vehicle to promote Armstrong or his teachings, you will continue to face disagreements with a multitude of impartial editors (and admins). 24.6.65.83 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

FromJebbrady 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Reading your posts, trying to understand your criticisms and how you interpret my words and actions, and comparing your thoughts to the thoughts and comments of administrators on this page, It makes me really thankful for the administrators. They may criticize and correct me, but they have a lucid approach to applying policies, grasp where I'm coming from, and are objective--all things that I'm relying on. And that's why may aim is to persuade them and not you. On this page, and in the edit history, everyone's intellectual honesty and good faith is laid bare for all to see--and I for one like that--it's good for Wikipedia and the article. In that vein, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's nothing personal, but that's the only rebuttal I'll offer. I hope that makes sense to you on some level. Hope we can work together effectively in the future regardless of our differing perspectives.

P.S. If you don't mind, please reword your comment about Rader and COI--I'm not getting what you are saying. Jebbrady 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbady

And still you sign your post four times. <sigh>

Rader has a COI whenever his writings touch on the legitimacy or promotion of the church that Armstrong started and/or Armstrong's role in same, because they also reflect on him and his role. 24.6.65.83 04:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote citations overlapping

In the article footnotes, my browser shows a new two column format for links, and the weblinks overlap text in the second column. Can we go back to a one column look if anyone knows how? As soon as I can, I'll try to get the proper link style in so they don't extend out.

Jebbrady 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

The two-column look comes from the {{reflist|2}} template at the head of the reference section. The two columns show up in Firefox, but only one in Safari. What browser are you using? I think the annoying links would go away if somebody re-did the citations using the WP:CITET templates, to eliminate the naked links. If it's a permanent problem we could go back to the single-column format. See {{reflist}} for how this template is supposed to work. EdJohnston 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I must be using Firefox Safari. I clothed the naked links on the 'left Side".

Jebbrady 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Hey everybody I've tried to convert as many references as I can to the proper WP:CITET templates. I'll continue to monitor the references for a few weeks unless someone tells me to get lost :) Preekout 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bless you. I wasn't looking forward to that. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah It wasn't a fun task. I have noticed (by looking at the edits) since making the changes that some people think we should consolidate the references. I think this is a good idea, but only when there are no actual page numbers or locations listed (which really should be a rare case). Otherwise we're going to loose the point of the references. I'll be happy to do the actual work but can I get some consensus on this before I start? I hate style wars. Preekout 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Preekout

Thanks for what you did.

For page numbers in the references, unfortuantely they many have no page numbers because the citations are from versions available online, which list no page numbers. (the plus is that people can check the use of the source immediately). To make the best of it for now, in the citatiion I put in the subheading and directions to the actual paragraph whenever it was reasonably easy to count it out from one heading or back form the next (i.e. Heading "Blah blah", sixth paragraph from the bottom). Getting page numbers for the hardcopy was on the backburner due to a deadline given us to put in citations. I'm hoping we get some help with hard copy page numbers.

Jebbrady 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Preekout, I'd definitely like to do some consolidation here. Maybe we should split it out to "Notes" and "References", with the full publication data of (for example) the Autobiography in References, with the Note being "Armstrong 1986, Chapter 1", or whatever the correct footnote format is? I know I've seen a WP:MOS reference to this somewhere.... Ah, there it is: WP:FOOT.--SarekOfVulcan 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm all for consolidation. There is no good reason to have multiple citations to the same webpage, even when different subheadings are involved. (Note that WP:FOOT style recommendations only use printed material with page numbers as examples.) I've also noticed that this is a common tactic for controversial articles that tend to rely on very few sources, often as a way of making it look as though the article has more sources than it actually does. 24.6.65.83 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent about multiple links to the same webpage. But it appears that a majority of the multiples are actually published books that have been made available online as well. Page numbers and headings are good for quickly verifying reference material, especially with "charged" topics like religion and politics. I think Sarek's idea is a good one, There could be a full cite book tag under a references section. Then we could have a footnotes section as well and list individual page numbers, the title and whatever comments. That way it would be easier to read as well as still provide the detail for anyone interested. Also welcome to the community, please create an account or sign in, it makes it oh so much easier to follow a conversation thread, thanks. Preekout 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir,

You are undoing a lot of someone else's labors that were compelled by administrators--and because you think it must be motivated by a lack of sources on a controvesial topic? Do you think it may have been done in order to make it possible for disenters to be able to find and verify the exact passage being cited? If you persist in this activity and try a revert war, it's not going to look too good on many levels. Just a thought.

If you want to help, find a source on Armstrong that all can agree is totally objective, and let us know about it immediately.

Jebbrady 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Actually, Jeb, looking at the two diffs [9] and [10], it appears that you are the one undoing lots of legitimate edits by others. You've readded tags that are old and outdated, removed all of the formatting that Preekout did, and most ironically even reinserted the bit about free distribution "to medical waiting rooms, prisons and on newsstands" that you argued should be removed, all to revert to your version with one addition that you made. I suggest you also consider the appearance of ownership that you show towards this article. 24.6.65.83 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From Jebbrady 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

My mistake. But you know, it looks like you helped me a bit to screw it up--and you seem pleased. I'm not. Preekout and the administrator Jossi can help. Now that it's getting a little chaotic I'll notify him of my desire to revert what you are trying to do--he directed me to put the citations in, and it took me hours of work. The 20 citations you destroyed are back for now though, and they give people a chance to check up on the veracity of specific items in the article. That's not so bad, is it?

Well, it's pretty easy to toss around the term "ownership", so I'm glad the history of this page and the article is available for administrators to look at. I'm willing to take any correction they offer. Ultimately it will be a fair article. If you want to help with that I'd be grateful.Jebbrady 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

No, you managed to screw it up all by yourself. 24.6.65.83 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)