Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Winged Sun Disc

However, Russell's use of the winged solar-disk originated from his understanding of Malachi 4:2, which denotes a sun with wings, as a symbol that Christ's millennial Kingdom had begun.[52]

This concusion seems reasonable, but I don't see how the specific citation has any relationship with the subject under discution. Can you please explain what exaclty in the pages given by the citation is connected to the winged sun-disc?

--87.202.234.230 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Every serious researcher knows that Russell has never been a Mason and that his teachings were in diametrical contrast with the teachings of Freemasonry (immortality of the soul, patriotism etc).

But there is a sentence in the paragraph that needs correction: In a public discourse given in 1913 in San Francisco he discouraged joining such organizations, and openly stated that he had "never been a Mason".[56][57] This sentence leads to some false presumptions.

In this specific public discourse, entitled “The Temple of God,” nowhere the joining to freemasonry is discouraged. Such discouragements have been written several times in other publications, such as the Watch Tower and the Millennial Dawn Vol. 6, but this specific discourse doesn’t refer to anything like that.

The simple reason for not doing that is its purpose. The discourse was not for the audience of the Bible Students, it was not for the building up of the congregation, but it was for the evangelizing of the Freemasons of the San Francisco Lodge (“we are speaking in a building dedicated to Masonry”).

As Paul did not attack Stoicism when he gave a talk to his philosophical audience in Athens, similarly Russell’s purpose was not to insult his audience but to draw them to the biblical message.

The fact that Russell tries at the beginning of his talk to persuade his Masonic audience that he is not a crusader against Freemasonry (“We have no quarrel with them. I am not going to say a word against Free Masons”) is actually the most striking evidence that during his days not only wasn't he considered a Freemason by anyone, but on the contrary it seems that he was considered hostile to Freemasonry; and that would be reasonable if we take into consideration the many negative statements about Freemasonry as written in the Russell’s publications.

At the middle of his discourse he says “I have never been a Mason”. He doesn’t say this in order to refute charges, as someone could have imagined, because in his days there were no such charges, but in order to explain his limited knowledge about the Masonic customs and theory (“Although I have never been a Mason, I have heard that in Masonry they have something which very closely illustrates all of this. … I do not know where they got it so well”.)

Having all these in mind, I think that the above sentence should be changed in something like that:

“Russell, giving an evangelistic discourse in the Lodge of San Francisco, said that he “had never been a Mason”. Even though in this discourse his purpose was not to “quarrel”, as he put it, with Freemasons[56], in several publications he openly stated that Christian identity is incompatible with Freemasonry.[57]”

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (but the ref [56] should go after the comma).--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) writes...

The following is put here because the controversy occurs in Charles_Taze_Russell#Alleged_connections_with_Freemasonry.

In Charles_Taze_Russell#Alleged_connections_with_Freemasonry, someone (the self-proclaimed "Pastorrussell") keeps restating what The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology actually says. When I revert to EXACTLY WHAT THE REFERENCE QUOTE SAYS, that someone pretends that I do so for nefarious purpose.
I certainly don't love the existing wording (which I didn't originate), and I don't care if the matter is restated somehow. What I do care about is when someone pretends a reference says something it doesn't. I'm copying that someone's nonsense from my Talk page to here (see below my signature) and then commenting below that. Enjoy.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the quotation in the CTR article in the section on "Alleged Connections with Freemasonry". You [that is, AuthorityTam] have twice altered the quotation to make it appear that CTR was a Jehovah's Witnesses, which is factually and historically untrue, and well documented. If one were to change the emphasis of the quote then that would indeed be "making the quote say something it doesn't" but that is not the case here. The emphasis of the quote is that CTR and those associated with him have rejected Spiritism, not the the Jehovah's Witnesses. The quote should be made to accurately reflect that. Thank you. Pastorrussell (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) writes...

No, a quote should not be "made" to do anything but accurately reflect what the original writer or speaker actually wrote or said. I have twice restored the exact quotation, restoring exactly what the quoted reference actually says without even a bit of elaboration. It would seem the issue is with that encyclopedia, rather than with me.

The so-called "PR" continues to reject this article wording:

"The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology says: "The Witnesses have, like many Christian churches, shown a marked aversion to Spiritualism and other occult phenomena. Very early in the group’s history Russell attacked Spiritualism (which he called Spiritism)"."

The whine is that the third-party reference peripherally connects Russell with "very early in the [Witnesses'] history". To work around his personal differences with the reference (apparently, a belief that Russell has nothing to do with the early history of JWs), the the so-called "PR" materially changes the quotation to this:

"The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology notes that Russell's supporters, along with other Christian churches have "shown a marked aversion to Spiritualism and other occult phenomena. Very early in the group’s history Russell attacked Spiritualism (which he called Spiritism)"."

That latter wording is worse than distracting, it's intellectually dishonest!

Again, I anticipate objection to any attempt made by me to restate the matter so that it doesn't put words into the mouth of The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Moreover, this article is about Russell; is it particularly relevant what modern Witnesses or Bible Students believe on the matter of Freemasonry's symbols? Perhaps someone else can consider and implement a change similar to this (skipping the encyclopedia's first quoted sentence entirely):

"The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology says: "Very early in [his] group’s history Russell attacked Spiritualism (which he called Spiritism)"."

This is a good reminder of the importance of assuring that a reference actually says what one wants it to say. It's one thing to truncate a quote, but excruciating care should be taken to keep the remaining quote faithful to what the reference actually says.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are as yet no reliable sources supporting any of this section and I'd suggest the whole thing be deleted if none can be provided. Who is Fritz Springmeier? Who published the book? Is it any more reliable than the anti-Witness propaganda websites cited here? LTSally (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The section itself is useful as an intelligent analysis of a too-common accusation against Russell. There is too much extraneous stuff, and Fritz seems beyond inappropriate.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Protestant?

The first sentence reads, "Charles Taze Russell (February 16, 1852 – October 31, 1916), also known as Pastor Russell, was a Protestant evangelist".

The problem? Russell didn't consider himself Protestant.

For example, in discussing Matthew 24:14 C. T. Russell said: “Catholics and Protestants, although they use our Lord’s prayer, saying, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,’ do not expect such a kingdom, and hence are not preaching it in all or in any of the nations of the world. . . . Thus this work is still open to be done and can be done by no others than those who know something of these good tidings of the kingdom.”—Watch Tower, January 1, 1892, page 8 (as cited and quoted on pages 10-11 of The Watchtower, January 1, 1968)

The article on Protestantism doesn't even mention Bible Students or Russell (or Jehovah's Witnesses). The most that could be said is that Bible Students accept the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, and reject the additional Catholic books. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If one is to examine his writings in detail it is quite clear that he was a Restorationist by practice, but as one reads the literature of most authorities it is clear that they generally consider Restorationists to be Protestant (with a capital 'P'). Bible Students also consider themselves to be restorationist in ideology although when facing the question to what religious view one holds the only options are "Catholic" and "Protestant". But if Wikipedia encourages such niceties then it would be proper to call him a "protestant restorationist minister" as opposed to a "catholic restorationist minister" because they are in fact two different things.Pastorrussell (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source indicating him to be Protestant, please supply it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of source are you seeking? In other words, a claim made by him that he was protestant, or something from a printed work about him in which he is called a Protestant? In actual fact he believed that both the Catholic and Protestant church had deviated from true Christianity and thus the only faithful Christian was one which had left both of those systems to study the Bible on his own - not necessarily with him - but alone and outside of denominational and creedal influences. My earlier point was that the term "Restorationist" within this context is relatively new, therefore anyone in the past who may have been by practice a Restorationist (like CTR was) would still have referred to themselves as Protestant not having known the word "Restorationist". Perhaps it is a fine point, but it seems to me that there are many different angles to this. What's your thought on it? Pastorrussell (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The word 'mummy' did not exist when the Egyptians first employed mummification. But we don't avoid that word on the basis that the term is more recent and didn't exist at the time. An encyclopedia should present current thought, and that is that he was 'restorationist'. If there is a source that indicates that he was called Protestant, that can also be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was only explaining a certain point of view that might have some validity. What do you think of "Christian Restorationist" rather than "Protestant Restorationist"? Technically speaking there are restorationist-type movements among Catholics as well, thus the suggested distinction with Protestant. Regardless of one's view "Christian Restorationist" is entirely accurate. Pastorrussell (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to change from Protestantism to Restorationism in the first place??? Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox all of them have Restorationist FACTIONS - note key word FACTIONS. Protestants have Restorationist movements. Catholics have Restorationist movements. Various Eastern Orthodox faiths have Restorationist movements. To single it out makes no sense historicaclly. It smacks of PC.Bbltype (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your claim that the change is politically motivated (assuming that is what you meant by 'PC'?), although do see your point. But consider this: Restorationism is different from internal reform movements. When a Catholic faction (splinter group, per se) seeks to return Catholicism to its original roots (such as restoring the Latin Mass, etc...) s/he is not necessarily seeking the restoration of early primitive Christianity even though they might argue that their faith is the true early Christian faith. Wesleyanism (i.e. Methodism) was an attempt to reform the Anglican church from within, but was not strictly Restorationist in its ideals even though they too believed their form of Christianity was the true path. CTR believed, as do Bible Students, that Bible prophecy indicates the Protestant movement was sent by God, but that it too became corrupted through various means. In Volume 3 of "Studies in the Scriptures" ("Thy Kingdom Come") it is pointed out how the Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1846 by British Protestants seeking to make a clear distinction between their faith and that of Catholicism, were in fact copying what Rome did over the previous centuries: they formulated official creed, and this marked the beginning of Protestantism's downfall. CTRs view was that the Bible taught the only way one could come to God was to leave the religious systems and organized religion to study the Bible on ones own free from all creedal influences, a view which has actually had a very significant impact upon Christian practice in the United States since his day, thus showing the depth of his influence upon American Christianity. So, although I would agree with the idea that the word "Restorationist" did not exist in CTRs day and that he most definitely would have called himself a "Protestant" his actual ideology was more in line with that of Restorationism/Restorationists, and thus I personally do not see any major problem changing "Protestant" to "Restorationist". Pastorrussell (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Russell and Bible Students disagreed with FUNDAMENTAL beliefs of Protestantism, such as trinitarianism (arguably the central doctrine of Protestantism).

Here is a reference that Russell didn't consider himself "Protestant".

"For example, in discussing Matthew 24:14 C. T. Russell said: “Catholics and Protestants, although they use our Lord’s prayer, saying, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,’ do not expect such a kingdom, and hence are not preaching it in all or in any of the nations of the world. . . . Thus this work is still open to be done and can be done by no others than those who know something of these good tidings of the kingdom.”"—Watch Tower, January 1, 1892, page 8 (as cited and quoted on pages 10-11 of The Watchtower, January 1, 1968)

If you want to put "Protestant" back in the article, please include verifiable references.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why is it taken out WITHOUT verifiable references? Why are your views more important? That isn't confrontation just an honest simple question. What verifiable references prove he wasn't? There aren't any references that have been posted to the justify the change here, so, the sudden change even raises more questions than it answers. Assume good faith - no problem - be nice and polite - no problem - but this seems really weird? Where are the references to prove YOUR point that a protestant minister wasn't a protestant minister?Bbltype (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, wow.

A statement, not made, need not be proven. You'll note the article doesn't currently say "Russell wasn't a Protestant." It merely refrains from identifying him thusly until and unless references show that's the majority view of some scholarly cross-section. I don't believe that will happen, ever.

Regarding why a statement can be removed without verifiable references, thricely I remark, wow.

Would it be wrong to delete an unreferenced comment that Russell had seven fingers on his left hand, or would we first have to search for a contradictory reference before we delete? No references were cited for the supposed 'Russell was Protestant' statement, despite a conspicuous "citation needed" tag on the statement for some time.

In any event, is it accurate to pretend that no reference argues against Russell's supposed Protestantism? No.

See my previous comment for the exact citation. If we can loosely paraphrase Russell in 1892, he says, 'Catholics aren't preaching God's Kingdom, Protestants aren't preaching God's Kingdom, but we Bible Students are preaching God's Kingdom'. IMHO that's a pretty good reference that Bible Students aren't Protestant (or Catholic).

"Weird"? Hardly.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a "wow", too. Bible Students of the modern day would take no issue with the view that they are Restorationists because it is the truth. The entire force of Pastor Russell's ministry was that the "Babylon" of the book of Revelation represented all who claim to speak on behalf of Christ but who have replaced the word of God with the traditions of men. He put into this category all Catholic and Protestant denominations, not the people, but the denominations which is the reason for CTR's statements to "come out of her and touch not the unclean thing". This isn't an attempt at a Bible discourse, merely to show that it is true that CTR believed the very things Restorationism is defined as. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Super-wow infinity!

"Restorationism" does not equal "Protestantism".

If an editor inserted or removed "Restorationist" from the article, it was likely for reasons unrelated to this thread. I don't think I've mentioned that matter at all.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower Magazine Name

Here is a thought to consider: Is it necessary to state that the name of "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" is now known as "The Watchtower: Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom"? The magazine actually went through about three or four name changes since its inception. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't particularly notable within the scope of this article to indicate all of the intermediate titles, however, it is worth mentioning the current title, because the longevity of the magazine Russell started is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point and agree with what you said. My only concern, as has been expressed by others, is that he would be improperly branded as a "Jehovah's Witness" since their views are in many ways completely opposite. There seem to be efforts by some JWs to make him one and the struggle to keep this article clean and Wikipedia standards compliant is quiet evident from the history table. To call CTR a "Jehovah's Witness" would be no more valid than to call William Miller a "Seventh Day Adventist". Pastorrussell (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns about attempts to claim Russell as a JW, as is explicitly claimed in JW literature (just as they attempt to also retroactively claim Abel, Noah and other Bible characters as JWs). However, making reference to the modern Watchtower in connection with the original magazine does not associate Russell with JWs any more than citing Warner (Brothers) as the current copyright owners of Happy Birthday affiliates the company with the Hill sisters who wrote the song in 1893.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response. You make some good points. My thought RE: the name of the Watchtower magazine as it was listed is that most people who have heard of it know that it is printed by the JWs therefore it could give a false impression when it is placed next to CTRs name without having properly qualified it with an appropriate verifiable historical detail. Thus, I put the date in which the name was changed to its current title, which the astute reader will note was over 20 years after CTRs death. Obviously what other people assume has absolutely nothing to do with facts, but my point is merely that it is useful to be aware of how information is read by others because facts can be presented in a way which supports pre-existing assumptions. It seems to be an issue of neutrality, although a fine one to be sure. For example, if one were to say that CTR "founded 'The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom'" (or even CTR "founded the Jehovah's Witnesses") it sounds correct and could be backed up by references where the JWs specifically say that very thing, but in truth it is factually inaccurate and deceptive (if the referencer was so motivated) because it hides that the magazine has gone through several name changes, different administration, schism, controversy, change in emphasis, etc... In the particular matter we are here discussing the issue was addressed by simply giving the date in which the current name of the magazine was adopted because it is already followed by the information of the schism, etc... Perhaps I'm making too fine of a point, but it does seem valid to me. I was not aware the JWs claimed Bible characters to be "Jehovah's Witnesses". That's somewhat disturbing, in my opinion. Do they still claim that the Governing Body is a direct line from the days of the Apostles? That is very similar to the idea of Apostolic Succession, which they condemn. Perhaps someone may attempt to write a Wikipedia article on the doctrinal controversies of the JWs, the vast majority of which came after the death of Pastor Russell. It would probably be vandalized quite heavily. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower magazine has been continuously printed by the same corporation since 1881, so it's not quite as misleading as you're suggesting, though it would certainly be incorrect to say that Russell founded the current magazine title, or that he was a JW. (Also technically incorrect is the expression sometimes seen in JW literature: "Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known".) However, Russell is intrinsically relevant to the history of the JW religion, so it would not be appropriate to imply there were no connection either.

JWs use the term 'Jehovah's witnesses' to refer to themselves and the bible characters in the same manner, e.g.: "Jehovah’s witnesses are not a sect but are an association of men and women who put God’s service first and line up with Bible principles, they are part of the group of witnesses that began with the first true witness of God, Abel" (w70 4/15 p. 249 - Note that this was published before JWs capitalized 'witnesses' when referring to themselves).

I have never seen any suggestion that JWs do or ever did claim that the Governing Body is a direct line from the apostles. (As a side point, the statement, "the vast majority of which came after the death of Pastor Russell" seems a little too defensive in view of the conflict of interest that your username and website indicate.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the JWs views on their organization in relation to early Christians. In regards the Governing Body, You will note that I was not saying the JWs teach they are a line from the Apostle's, but from the Apostle's day. That is, they teach them to be an unending line of faithful Christians from the first century church which continued unbroken through the Christian age to the modern day. They certainly did teach that at one point. Have they changed that view? No "defensiveness" was intended when stating that the vast majority of changes in doctrine did indeed come after CTRs death, because it's true if for no reason other than that there were no internal organizational crises (a few disagreements though) in his time, but certainly due to the fact that his views remained consistent throughout his life whereas JFRs did not. I'm sorry you think that view is a conflict of interest, but disagree and believe that discussing it would be unprofitable as it lead to some serious charges in the past which are not true, but thanks though for your thoughts. Pastorrussell (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread is almost entirely unrelated to its stated topic.

There are lots of 'soap boxes' on the internet. This isn't one of them.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published

Self-published stupidities are the claims of Russell's having connections with Freemasonry. But Sally, I haven't seen you till now bothering with that for so many years...--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that behaviour of hers is at least curious. Thank you, Vassilis! My point is not about Russell being a Mason, but mainly on the symbology of the specific pyramid near his gravesite and about all pyramids that picture such a 'Christendom's' symbol. One cannot deny that the Cross and Crown symbol should not be there. Which is the relationship of a cross to the Jehovist thought? The latter supports that Christ was not crucified, that a cross is a pagan symbol, does not it? Its presence there is very curious.

A discussion which respects both pro and con opinions is welcome, laudable. Such a discussion is welcome to every article I produce. People should be allowed to think by themselves, what a section on a supposed connection of Russell (or things related to him, but not necessarily with his approval) to Freemasonry does execute. As Vassilis suggests, that section is here very before my entrance to Wikipedia. Alleged connections with Freemasonry has a style and tone similar to the other sections of the article. They claim that is self-published because it talks about a controversial matter. Controversy may happen everywhere. --Algorithme (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Algortime, JWs used the cross as a Christian symbol for years after Russell's death. But we have to make clear that neither for Russell nor for JWs the cross was ever as important as it is in Roman-Catholicism or in Orthodoxy. The latter two religions consider the cross as the means of salvation and attribute magical power to it and worship it, following old pagan customs. For Russell and JWs it was only a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death. Nothing more, nothing less. But this case it doesn't really have any connection with the topic under discussion.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting my point. That doctrine about cross usage (or avoidance, more precisely) should not have been modified, if it was (or is) so important. If the cross has no place in Jesus' life, i.e, if he was not crucified (but staked), cross usage as "a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death" should be condemned, Vassilis! It should not, naturally, be on the pyramid near Russell's gravesite. The Cross and Crown article itself says that the symbol is now regarded as pagan by Jehovah's Witnesses. --Algorithme (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Including any claim that the Cross is an inappropriate symbol is a JW doctrinal issue and has nothing to do with the pyramid marker or CTR's views on the Bible. CTR believed and Bible Students still believe that Jesus was executed on a Cross, not an upright pole. JFR was the one to suggest that Jesus died on a pole rather than a Cross, so it's a doctrinal interpretation and has no proper place in the section on Freemasonry. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In your haste to disassociate Russell from the JWs, you've missed the point completely. Mentioning the "cross (and crown)" is relevant in this section because the "cross and crown" is considered (by parties who believe there to be a controversy) a symbol used by Freemasons. It's inclusion in the Freemasons section has absolutely nothing to do with any view held by JWs, and JWs' unrelated objection to the cross does not invalidate relevance of the "cross and crown" to the supposed Freemasonry 'controversy'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly cannot speak for LTSally, but what he might be concerned with is that even Springmeier himself states that he did not have any original documentation, but was merely trying to introduce the thought that Russell may have had Masonic connections. His self-published book is what began to suggest the topic be researched, yet none of which has proven one iota that CTR had any Masonic connections. Hopefully LTSally will comment here on his thoughts, but my assumption is that this is where he considers this section to be based upon "self-published" sources, and if that is his position then I would have to agree. Springmeier does not present a single bit of evidence for his claims. The link LTSally gave directs one to the Wikipedia page which states that: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Springmeier was not an expert, and his book was a self-published source without any documentation presented to back up his fantastical claims. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The section itself is useful as an intelligent analysis of a too-common accusation against Russell. There is too much extraneous stuff, and Fritz seems beyond inappropriate.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The matter does need to be addressed because it has become such a prominent, if not one of the most prominent, modern criticisms/controversies about CTR. The question is, how can it be presented accurately without having to rely upon Springmeier or published works which refer back to him as the original source? Perhaps this section is too long as is and could be whittled down to the bare basics? CTRs statements regarding Freemasonry and his incidental remarks that he had never been connected to them are quite clear and surprisingly direct considering it was not an accusation in his day. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole stupid topic begun with the UFO-logist Springmeier. He is the source of everyone else as regards Russell and Freemasonry. If we erase him, there is no reason to keep the topic. But everyone knows well that this topic should remain as a good example of how "if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit." (ASV) And, believe me, here we do not have only two blinds, but a whole train of blinds. --Vassilis78 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Springmeier a reliable source? I don't know anything about him and the footnoted reference to him is inadequate to identify him or his book. Was it self-published or published by a reputable publisher? The websites used in the Freemasonry section are effectively self-published sources as well, created by who-knows-who and to advance what position? My argument is that without reputable sources, this section breaches the guidelines for an an encyclopedia that attempts to provide reliable, accurate and balanced information. The inclusion of a section simply to deny a claim hardly seems appropriate if the claim cannot be established properly, using reliable sources, in the first place. LTSally (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is what is printed at the beginning of the book: "The Watchtower & The Masons" written, printed, published by Fritz Springmeier Portland, OR Copyright 1990 A Christian Ministry to Jehovah's Witnesses [address]". Then on the back cover it says: "Fritz Springmeier is a Witness Inc. missionary to Jehovah's Witnesses. He has attended West Point U.S.M.A., Rosedale Bible Institute, and Clackamas Community College. He has written a small 7-volume series on Christian doctrine, a comic book 'Adventures of 2 JWs', and a book 'Refutation...' which refutes the JW belief that the Archangel Michael is Christ. He has also written on non-religious subjects. Fritz has traveled extensively worldwide, and lived in Europe, Africa, and Asia. He lives in Portland with his wife, Gayle, his son Michael, and another child on the way." The edition I have is "First Edition Second Release", and it is a spiral bound 'book'. Witness Inc. is a very outspoken group of individuals opposed to the JWs and CTR. It was founded by a man named Duane Magnani, a former JW. His most popular self-published book (of the same style as the aforementioned) is called "Charles Taze Russell - Child Molester" which was written back in the 1980s. Pastorrussell (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the section be whittled down to bare basics and read something akin to the following, with the appropriate references, of course:

Several decades after his death Russell was alleged to have had close ties with Freemasonry based primarilly upon his use of, or association with, symbols claimed to be exclusively Masonic in nature, and that such associations implied he engaged in occult activity. (Perhaps add a short sentence that these allegations remain unproven?)

Although these allegations were not made in his day, during his trans-continental speaking tour Russell gave a discourse in a Masonic hall in San Francisco in June, 1913 where he stated: "Although I have never been a Mason...Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally". Throughout his ministry he stated that he believed Christian identity is incompatible with Freemasonry, and that Freemasonry, Knights of Pythias, Theosophy, and other such groups are "grievous evils" and "unclean". An official Freemason website states: "Russell was not a Freemason. Neither the symbols found in the Watchtower nor the cross and crown symbol are exclusively Masonic." Pastorrussell (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The accusation is made by a non-wiki-standards source and the answer comes from a wiki-standards source. So, we have two choises:

1. We leave the paragraphs as they are now, complete in information and claryfication.
2. We erase the whole section.

I believe the first choise is better, because the subject is important.

But I find it meanningless to erase only the accusation. If the accusation is not important because of its being self-published, then there is no reason for refuting a meanningless accusation.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Bible Student ties to Freemasonry are not unique to, or an invention of, Springmeier. Allegations of such are acknowledged in JW publications as occurring at least as early as 1926 (yb78 p. 141 Spain, yb94 p. 81 Greece), so the section should not be dismissed purely of a judgement against Springmeier. Ideally, sources closer to Russell's time should be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The references you point to from the 1974 and 1994 JW Yearbook do not accuse CTR of being Freemason. Both of the references state that the Bible Student involved in that particular work was doing something similar to Freemasons. In fact, the 1974 reference says the pioneers were distributing literature of a "Jewish-Freemason tendency". Springmeier was the first to make the accusation that CTR was a Freemason, and it was followed by David Icke, and then others followed. This can be determined by those who have made the accusations and to whom they refer back to. Springmeier is the original source. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the references do not accuse CTR of being a Freemason. (And of course the JW Yearbook it not going to say any more than is relevant to the account.) But the yearbooks do indicate that there were perceived connections between the Bible Students and Freemasonry even in the 1920s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those references. Your point is well taken, but this particular section we are discussing is specifically relating to the accusation made against CTR, not individual Bible Students or even Bible Students as a movement. The circumstances under which the Bible Students in question were called some form of "Freemason" was more along the lines of an epithet or calling names, rather than making an informed, or seemingly informed, claim based upon study and documentation. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also want to bring to your attention that plenty of the meterial used in the Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse article is self-published indeed. If we follow a rule, we should follow it everywhere.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you raise your specific concerns at the article's Talk page? I don't check that article very often.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Russell website

The presence of a self-published site about Pastor Russell that presents itself as an official Bible Students website, run by a primary contributor of this article is both an unreliable source and a conflict of interest. This issue has been previously raised with the regard to this article here, here, here, here and here, as well as at other talk pages, with no clear resolution. Also, this comment suggests that the owner of the site is not an entirely authoratative source on Bible Students.

This is not a suggestion that User:pastorrussell should not be editing or has improper motives. It is a recommendation that Wikipedia articles not call his website official, not cite it as an authorative source, and not link directly to its main page. Original information found only on pastor-russell.com constitutes original research; it would therefore only be suitable to link directly to hosted materials that are exact reproductions of original sources (such as early Bible Student publications) without additional commentary. It is also not appropriate that copyright of those materials be claimed as owned by pastor-russell.com, as their copyright has expired and the owner of the site indicates the site is not affiliate with Russell's estate (synonymous with any statement that 'no estate exists').--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't very nice to wake up to this today. The "official website" issue was indeed resolved because it was removed from the listings and currently stands only as a 'Pastor Russell website', or words to that effect and have not brought it up since. The suggestion that I am not an entirely authoritative source on the Bible Students is very unkind, and an unnecessary characterization. I consulted with others for their opinions for your benefit because you often come across as insisting things be done your way and it was my desire to keep the peace and work together. That's not to say I am perfect, certainly not. There are things in past comments of mine which shouldn't have been said or were put the wrong way, or merely come off the wrong way because words in print on a computer screen sometimes convey different ideas than when spoken face-to-face, but when wrong will admit to being wrong. There is no conflict of interest, and it has been my endeavour to be as neutral and fair as possible, consistent with all Wikipedia guidelines and my record over the past year proves that. There was no proper reason to bring this up. I do not plan to remove myself from editing this article or the Bible Student Movement article. The copyright issue? I told you last week the documents are being rescanned and those items removed, so it was not necessary to bring it up again. While there isn't an "estate" the site is supported by the only surviving relative. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I specifically indicated above that I am not suggesting you shouldn't be editing articles here. A statement that someone is not an entirely authoratative source on something has nothing to do with being unkind, nor does it mean that the person doesn't have a good knowledge of the subject or that they are not sincere. It simply indicates a concern that information on the pastor-russell website may not accurately present concensus of beliefs or opinions of the Bible Students. My concerns are clearly stated as relating to the website. Inclusion of a website amongst a list of official websites (which also don't use the word 'official') implies to readers that that site is also official. If you're upgrading the scans, that's good, but the fact that the copyright was ever claimed on those documents also worries me.

I note your concern about my insistence on presentation of various matters, and others have said similar on other issues. However, I believe that I've fairly consistently had good reasoning to back up my arguments. But of course, I'm not perfect either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several groups of Bible Students. Those who I do not associate with or know very little about I do not edit, for example the Layman's Home Missionary Movement. There is much I know about Johnson (their founder/organizer) but not the modern workings of the group itself, and I've contacted them several times for detailed info of their current activities or to encourage them to edit that section of the article and their own article, too. Those things which you've seen me edit are my area of expertise, so-to-speak and my knowledge is quite extensive, although I'm not the only one for whom this is the case. But there is often a fine line between providing accurate information which can be documented, and original research. This is evident in many well-written and formulated articles on Wikipedia. In most cases the editors reach a consensus pleasing to all and consistent with Wikipedia standards without focusing too much on marginal areas. The "official" status of the website is an issue which was resolved to the satisfaction of the individuals who were discussing it at the time. A consensus was reached, and the matter was dropped. Why does it need to be raised again? (It is the official site, but how does one prove that? The only surviving relative supports it, which is the most relevant point - the compromise/consensus, which was fair in my eyes, is to leave the link but remove the word "official" which I agreed to in order to keep the peace and get back to proper editing of the article rather than focusing on matters of marginal import) I've made compromises both for you and for issues you've raised, even when disagreeing and having Wikipedia guidelines to back me up. Sometimes when someone is frequently (or at least consistently) cited as being overly insistent and immovable it is best to step back a little bit, even if they think that they have enough to back them up. Afterall, isn't that the position taken by anyone who is overly insistent that things be done their way? They believe that they can back up what they are doing or saying. I value your input, and you seem well read, but my thought is that since this matter was resolved to the satisfaction of others it isn't necessary to bring it up again, and hopefully after some re-evaluation you will be able to come to the same conclusion. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that if a website is official, reliable, and notable, there should be editors other than the site's creator who insist on its inclusion without the owner having any need to include it themself. A site's creator posting links to their own site in articles in order to establish knowledge of that site is not appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is true. If someone is seeking to 'publicize' themselves that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Most of the links to the site and the scans were initially placed by others, and when taken down were again put up by others, including the individuals with whom the issue was initially discussed when the consensus was reached. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The first link to the pastor-russell website was posted as the first edit by IP editor 69.133.109.231 on 25 October 2004 at 2:28(UTC) on this article. That editor made edits until 2:49, followed by User:Pastorrussell's very first Wikipedia edit at 2:59(UTC) the same day on the same article. Too much of a co-incidence. It was yourself who brought your own site to the attention of Wikipedia editors. The proper course of action to follow from this point would be to remove links to the site, for User:Pastorrussell to remain silent on re-adding it, and to allow other editors to link to the site if they consider it notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection, you were the first person to add any reference to your website in the following articles:

• Charles Taze Russell
• Associated Bible Students
• Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Jonas Wendell
• Bible Student movement
• Nelson H. Barbour
• Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups
• Bible Students
• Dawn Bible Students Association
• Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
• International Bible Students Association
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Frank and Ernest (broadcast)

You didn't add it to the Photo Drama of Creation, which is the only article I've seen for which you didn't add the first reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are partially correct. I did not place the link in all of those articles although I did to several of them, and you had to go back to 2004 to prove your point, which also proves my point that you don't seem, for your own reasons, to care about the consensus reached last year and only wish for your view to be the final one which is unfair and unkind. It is that which causes me concern, and it should concern others as well. Others were involved in removing the links and then putting them back up. In fact one of them was another Bible Student, one was an editor with a critical attitude like yourself, and one was an outsider. A consensus was reached. I dropped the issue. It makes no sense as to why you are bringing it up again. Incidentally, if you are attempting to suggest I have or do edit under more than one username you are completely wrong. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not 'suggesting' anything. I am 'indicating' that prior to the creation of your username, you briefly edited using an anonymous IP, and that it was you who added your website to pretty much all of the articles relevant to Russell, as indicated above. I went back to the early periods of those articles, because you claimed, "Most of the links to the site and the scans were initially placed by others", so of course I went to the initial appearance of references to your website in those articles. If you consider it 'unkind' to point out that your claim is demonstrably untrue, then so be it. You promoted your site from the outset, and then decided there was consensus for its use as a notable site simply because there was a single point of consensus of not stating the site as official, but that consensus did not address the underlying issue of self-promotion at all. There is little wonder that you 'dropped the issue' when you were given the inch, and took the mile with it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you have claimed that you did not in fact add the initial link in all of those articles (i.e. accusing me of lying), the diffs have now been supplied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I never accused you of lying. You have, however, questioned my motives, maligned my character, and even seemed to suggest that I edited under more than one username. If you feel that your actions are commendable then so be it. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous IP is the absence of having a username, and is not the same as intentionally setting up a different username. I have clearly indicated the circumstances of your edits under an anonymous IP before the creation of your username. I have also indicated that you have been dishonest in your claim that you did not introduce your site to articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a Christian and abhor all forms of dishonesty, including both lying and stealing.

"Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images." — http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

"For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel Pastorrussell (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the implication that perhaps non-Christians don't abhor dishonesty, lying, and stealing, it's not really clear what your point is here. Your quote from WP:Libel is about information in articles, and I'm not sure what in the article you might be referring to, so can only assume that you are stating it in reference to my statements above, however I see no application there either. You (an anonymous individual operating under an alias) said you didn't initially include your site in the articles I listed. I have shown that you did include the initial link in those articles. Did you have some point that I have missed?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COIN#Charles Taze Russell

User:Jeffro77 has questioned the use of the pastorrussell.com web site, and asked about possible conflict of interest in the editing of User:Pastorrussell. If other editors of this article want to share their views, you can add them to the above thread at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell's death

Reporters with firsthand information cite Russell's case of death as cystitis. Why should this cause of death be undone based on sources with second or thirdhand information? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

More than one? Request quotations.

Here are two:

“The fact is he did not die of heart trouble, but of an inflammation of the bladder, and while writing you on Brother Bohnet’s desk I could not fail to see on the burial permit that the cause of death was given as ‘Cystitis’.”-- St. Paul Enterprise, “Items of Interest Pastor’s Last Rites,” William Abbott, editor, November 14, 1916 p. 3 column 3 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

“He did not die of heart disease as stated but of cystitis, according to Mr. Sturgeon.” -- St. Paul Enterprise, “Waynoka Men Are Good Samaritans,” Letter written by Samuel Pearson, Pastor of Congregational Church of Waynoka, Oklahoma, November 21, 1916 p. 1 column 4 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quotation from a primary source:

“…and though for several days manifestly dying, with cystitis (caused by excessive travel and speaking), he declined to cancel any engagements, and went out of this life October 31, 1916 on a railroad en route to his Kansas appointment.” -- The Finished Mystery, 1918 p. 58 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source:

“Indeed he was fiercely bent upon a pastoral mission when overtaken by cystitis at Dallas, Texas, in 1916…” -- The New Books of Revelations, by Charles W. Ferguson, 2004 p. 65 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam: I leave it to you to fix the article's current state of misinformation that Russell died of a heart attack. He did not.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute over his cause of death. Both Wills and Rogerson attribute it to his worsening cystitis. Macmillan, on page 61 of Faith on the March, quotes a NY Times article that says he died of heart disease. Probably both suggestions should be included. The Watchtower to which I've added a link also includes Menta Sturgeon's account of his failing health on his speaking tour and how, on the train trip he was asked by Russell to make him a Roman toga from sheets; Russell literally rose from his death bed so Sturgeon could dress him in it. LTSally (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The New York Times article went to press prior to the coroner establishing cause of death. There is no disputing that the cause of death was cystitis. Researchers who have depended on that NYTimes article and published accordingly were just lazy. It does not take much digging to learn the cause of Russell's death.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. Your references do refer to the burial certificate, which is presumably more reliable. LTSally (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell and 1913 "cardiac arrest"

Pastorrussell edits the article to read,

"When on a speaking tour of Europe in 1913 he experienced cardiac arrest requiring resuscitation."

The source is provided says,

"In the Fall of 1913 he had made his usual trip to Europe, and there for the first time, he missed, not one, bur many appointments, through, or as a result of, physical collapse, and several of his appointments were filled by others. While in London his collapse was complete for a time. To such an extent was this true that it was told me by his traveling companion of that time, as stated by the specialist in charge, that his heart did not beat for five seconds. He was revived by the use of mechanical contrivances, known to the medical profession." -- http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/history/laodicean%20messenger.htm

Where does this source say Russell experienced cardiac arrest? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If the quote is accurate, isn't "heart did not beat" just about the definition of "cardiac arrest"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No. The depiction does not sound like cardiac arrest. It sounds like a common condition where it feels like the heart stops beating for a few moments (or moment). Furthermore, the statement is nowhere near substantial. At the most the statement represents third-hand information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My quesiton remains, Where does this source say Russell experienced cardiac arrest? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest is defined by all medical encyclopedias and references as the sudden cessation of heart beat accompanied by loss of consciousness. Please visit http://www.mdguidelines.com/cardiac-arrest/definition for a clear definition. The reference in the "Laodicean Messenger" states that his heart stopped, he lost consciousness, and needed to be revived. He actually experienced this on several occasions, at the very least indicative of a serious arrhythmia, but this book is the only one I know of which documents it. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Then there is no documentation of any cardiovascular incident. According to your source, the information is, at best, third-hand information. Third-hand information is worthless. When third-hand information is not corroborated by at least one reputable source, then the information is less than worthless. It falls into the catagory of gossip and hearsay. Accordingly, your source is no basis for including an assertion in the article that Russell suffered a cardio event.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2: I see you have re-inserted language that Russell suffered a cardiac event. I leave it to you to remove this undocumented assertion. If not you, then another editor who cares. I do not care. I have already edited conscientiously, and according to Wikipedia guide language. What editors do from here is up to them.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When there is only a single source of information making assertion that Russell's heart stopped beating for "five seconds" (?!!!) and needed extraneous revival, and that source admits the information is third-hand, there is probably a good reason there is only a single source making such an assertion. As a core tenet, Wikipedia encourages reliability and verifiability. There is nothing reliable about admittedly third-hand information. Nothing. For what it's worth...Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Today I reviewed every issue of the St. Paul Enterprise (newspaper) between September 1913 and December 1914 and found no mention of Russell having any health issues while in Europe during the Fall of 1913. During this period the St. Paul Enterprise was an information exchange for all things important to the Bible Students. The decidedly and growing Bible-Student-centric nature of the St. Paul Enterprise makes it a likely place to learn of any known health concerns related to Russell. Yet, for the period in question of the Fall of 1913, no mention is found of any ill-health events. For whatever its worth...Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have copies of the originals and have read them numerous times over the years. The St. Paul Enterprise was published by a Bible Student which is why it appeared to have Bible Student-leanings. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Though William Abbott (owner, editor and publisher of St Paul Enterprise) was definitely leaning more and more toward Bible Studentism in his later years, during the period in question (Fall of 1913) he had not yet symbolized his consecration as a Bible Student. This did not occur until October of 1915. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the lack of evidence in another publication (which may be explained by the suggestion that the matter was kept quiet at the time), Marvin Shilmer makes a valid point: the Laodicean Messenger, written anonymously, makes only a vague assertion of its source: "it was told me by his traveling companion of that time, as stated by the specialist in charge ...". Wills (pg 35) notes that Russell suffered constant health problems including headaches, hemorrhoids and cystitis, which were aggravated by his strenuous travelling and speaking schedule and lack of sufficient rest. Rogerson (pg 30) says: "In the autumn of 1916 Pastor Rusell was very ill; in the previous year Rutherford had to deputise for him at an important debate with J.H. Troy." The 1975 JW Yearbook refers to Russell's "rapidly failing health and extreme physical discomfort by autumn of 1916". That being the case, it's probably safer to delete the reference to the 1913 resuscitation and note only that his health had been failing in his final years. LTSally (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In my view some reference should be made of this incident, at least in the footnote. But if the majority prefer nothing be mentioned believing the statement in "The Laodicean Messenger" a less-than-adequate source then I shall assent to the majority opinion. It would, however, be entirely proper to reference his failing health, along with at least a cursory mention of what would today be referred to as his heart arrhythmia, his constant migraines, persistent and severe hemorrhoids (a serious malady in his day) and the theory that he died from cystitis. He suffered from numerous ailments which altogether served to further weaken him in the last few years. There is a long-standing rumor that JFR poisoned CTR resulting in premature death. Some statements accompanied by appropriate references is a good antidote for ignorance. On another note, there is some question on the time of his death. A definitive picture has never emerged. Early sources (including his Secretary) point to his death late at night on the 31st Octr. '16, some newspapers even dating his death to the 1st. I have some of these references and will go over them in the coming days to reference in this article. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There is reliable source information expressing that Russell suffered from headaches, hemorrhoids and cystitis. There is no reliable source information expressing that Russell suffered from arrhythmia. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There is no question that Russell died in the early PM on a train. It appears you are confusing statements made of the late night events at Waynoka with statements made of the time of Russell's death on the train. The two events occurred many hours apart. The death occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 PM and the Waynoka event occurred in the late evening. The timing of these events is well documented for those who have already researched it by reading firsthand accounts shared in reputable news sources with no axe to grind. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Are you going to remove the undocumented assertion that Russell suffered a cardiac event in the Fall of 1913? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it has been settled yet. You alone have been championing its removal and only one other has opined, though I do respect his opinions more than most. The phrase "cardiac arrest" was removed and "cardiac event" is generic enough because the dispute was over the arrest. As for the time and circumstances of his death, etc... I've been studying CTR's life for more than two decades so am familiar with the details. Unfortunately, a lot remains out of print even to this day. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No. The dispute is not over the term “arrest” (as in cardiac arrest). The dispute is over the use of the specific source information you have offered. It is, admittedly, third-hand information. Third-hand! If we accept this information on that basis then what else shall we also include in the article that is likewise sourced to third-hand information? You are probably aware there is plenty of material written about Russell that is second and third-hand, and plenty of it paints a very disreputable picture of the man. Should we apply your standard and include all this information in the article as reliable information? Should we, for instance, include the information that once during his presidency an arrest warrant was issued for his arrest because of contempt of court? Should we include this information? How about all the other information that is said by second and third-hand sources? Are we to include all this on the same basis you are plying here? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: So far as Wikipedia policy goes, the matter is settled. The information you have edited into the article should be deleted because the information is unreliable. I could deleted it, but frankly do not care to engage an editor like you in a petty waste of my time. My hope is you will realize that were everyone else to apply the same standard you have edited in this case, the article would soon become a worthless piece of school yard gossip. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Any more comments before the unverified information is removed?

Currently the article states “While in London, England in 1913 during a European speaking tour Russell experienced a cardiac event requiring resuscitation.” The sole source provided for this assertion is 1) written anonymously, 2) admittedly third-handed information as to the incident in question, 3) is not a third-party source, and 4) is probably self-published from the looks of it. Before the assertion is removed does anyone have a reliable source to support it?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The cited sentence is deleted. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Time of Death

It does not matter how long a person studied the life of Russell. What matters is the information collected and what is done with that information. Regarding the timing of Russell’s death, he died on a train that had a known schedule. Contemporary records offering firsthand accounting of the event express arrival and departure information that pins down within a narrow timeframe when Russell died. He died in the early PM hours between 2:00 and 3:00.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Marital separation

1) Currently this section parrots a simplistic and one-sided story of why Maria Russell seperated from CT Russell. Should we include the other side? That is, should we include published reports of CT Russell's treatment of Maria as a human being that was held as reason for Maria to seperate herself from CT? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2) Published reports say the Russell's were divorced. Why is this term not used in the section dealing with the legal disposition of the Russell's marriage? Should we use the term and explain the form of divorced granted and why Maria chose to sue for that type of divorce over the other? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

3) Should this section include published reports about Russell transferring his assets to his corporation (Watchtower) in an attempt to avoid paying alimony to Maria Russell? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

4) Should this section include published reports of Russell leaving the state of Pennsylvania in an attempt to avoid paying alimony to Maria? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

5) Should this section include published reports of CT Russell attempting to assasinate the character of Maria Russell? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of Russell's marital problems does miss some of the points you raise, but expanding that section too much runs the risk of giving undue weight to that particular aspect of his life. The article in general ignores many significant aspects of Russell's life and I have a medium-term plan to overhaul the article as I did with Rutherford, using a wider range of sources. Care obviously needs to be taken that any claims made about him are accurate and balanced, and contemporaneous press coverage of him is not always reliable. I am nearing completion of expanded coverage of the Watch Tower Society's history and this does address claims (by two authors I've used as sources) that the 1909 move to Brooklyn was motivated by his eagerness to flee the Pennsylvania courts' jurisdiction, given his refusal to increase Maria's alimony payments. See what you can find in the meantime, I guess. LTSally (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

LTSally is correct. This article and in fact none on Wikipedia are to be written to make a person look good or look bad. The information needs to be presented in fair, balanced, and neutral fashion. There are an equal number of suitable sources which are very critical as well as those which are very supportive. It wouldn't be appropriate to mention every single aspect of his life here, good or bad, and when the info is presented it should be done in a way which does not give undue influence to negative views, such as those which you are endorsing here and in other articles you've written or edited most of which seem to emphasize the critical. The first part of each of your questions is neutral on the surface, but the qualifiers are nothing but speculation and themselves a form of "character assassination". They were not divorced, but separated. He left PA, but there is no proof of his motivation, only speculation. Your statement that he was involved in "character assassination" in regards his wife is actually quite crude and nothing more than the point of view of those who often focus only on the critical or controversial aspects of his life. Those things have no place in a Wikipedia article. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am disinterested in a side. I am completely interested in presenting information verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. How about including an assertion in this section stating, "Charles Russell compelled wife, Maria, to leave him by his treatment of her." Would you find such an assertion comparable to the present opening sentence in the section? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversies connected to his marriage are perhaps better documented and commented upon than any of the others. In fact, many overlap, but most of them seem to touch upon the marriage to some degree. So, it is evident that the Marriage section should be expanded. When presenting the claims made they should be dispassionate, neutral and merely statements of fact rather than a presentation of speculation, analysis, or isolated opinions. A statement such as "Charles Russell compelled..." is an assertion that is neither proven nor dis-proven, and can be slanted either way (pro CTR or pro MFR). It is difficult to determine a person's motives and/or motivation without clear-cut statements from the person, or strong evidence. In the case of the separation there is conflicting information. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, in fact quite to the contrary. We just need to make sure it is presented in a neutral fashion, dispassionate, and factual, not speculative or presumptive. There are many who state that his treatment of his wife was deliberately cruel, and there are others who state that he was a tender and kindly man who was not used to dealing with strong women (thus his seeming discomfort of the suffrage movement). As with most things in life the truth lay in the middle. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, and I agree. The current presentation makes assertion that is decidely pro-CTR and contra-MFR rather than simply stating what sources have to say on the subject. Primarily this is what I see that needs correction. Whether the subject is expanded is another subject.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example/explanation of how (ie in what way) you believe it is specifically pro-CTR? Is this because certain information isn't addressed? Some of it is in the Criticisms and Controversies section. Do you think it would be better to move it from there to the section in question? I'm not sure that I agree it is currently pro-CTR, but of course you may see something I do not. No doubt we can all work together to get the Marriage section in tip-top shape in a way that we can all agree upon regardless of one's personal views of Russell. It's probably best that we begin with suggestions here and a sample re-wording as others have done on Talk pages before finalizing any edits. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. The current opening paragraph for that section reads:

"In 1897 Russell's wife, Maria, left him after disagreeing over the management of Zion's Watch Tower magazine. She believed that, as his wife, she should have equal control over its administration and equal privilege in writing articles, preaching, and traveling abroad as his representative. In 1903 she filed for legal separation on the grounds of mental cruelty, because of what she considered to be forced celibacy and frequent cold, indifferent treatment. The separation was granted in 1906, with Russell charged to pay alimony. During the trial Maria Russell's attorney made the claim that Russell had been inappropriately intimate with Rose Ball, a young woman whom the Russells had cared for as a "foster daughter" since age ten."

Note that the presentation makes an outright assertion that MFR left CTR because of blah, blah, blah. But when it comes to MFR's side of the story, the same article states her side as "what she considered to be" blah, blah, blah. Such a presentaiton is decidedly pro-CTR and contra-MFR. Why is CTR's view presented as fact rather than his allegation? Why is MFR's view presented as allegation rather than fact? This is an example of what I see in the current presentation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Can you suggest a re-wording? I'd be interested in seeing how you'd put it. I'll make my suggestions (and reasons for them - whatever they may be) based upon your sample and ideas. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: For starters, we should avoid expressing what anyone believed. We don't know what anyone believed. All we know is what people said or wrote so far as it is documented. Because someone said or wrote something does not mean they believed it. For all manner of reasons people say and write things they do not actually believe, and without a doubt divorce proceedings are notorious for this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged the article with two requests for sources. If someone has sources to support those two statements it would be helpful.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the sources you are requesting, as well as several others. But before making any changes will suggest them here first so that we can come to a consensus. I'm sure you have many good thoughts on the best presentation and wording. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If you have the sources then please cite the sources so the statements can be verified. I am waiting for you. What are you waiting for? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through my material now. No need to be impatient, sir. Surely you didn't intend to word it quite that way. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Still waiting. If the statement is left unverified it will be deleted.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)