Talk:Don Alden Adams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Notability--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy

Several redundant points have been added to this article to give the appearance that Adams is notable in third party sources. The following statements are basically reiterations of the same point, from sources simply stating that Adams is president of the Watch Tower Society.

• Don Alden Adams is the current president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

• recognized internationally as head.
• Adams is occasionally listed as the titular "religious leader" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Although not a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Adams became president of the Watch Tower Society after Governing Body member Milton G. Henschel stepped down from that office in 2000.
• he has been included in the Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches since his election.

In what manner are The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions and A Guide to New Religious Movements "publications such as The Washington Post", and do they make the claimed statement or do they simply state that Adams is president?

The rest of the article is derived primarily from JW 'life story' articles that has no notability in third-party sources, and similar 'life story' articles about other non-notable individuals contain similar information.

Based on these details, Adams has still not been substantially indicated as notable in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above comment is sufficiently petty that it need not be addressed.

What delicious irony!--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The publications The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions and A Guide to New Religious Movements both describe Adams as a "fifty year veteran" of either Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses organizations.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Many JWs are 'fifty year veterans' (or longer). Do any of these sources say anything particularly notable about Adams, other than including him in lists of Watch Tower presidents?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article now includes twenty-four secondary sources (some for more than one point), as well as arguably primary sources.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of these references prove only that he exists rather than asserting notability. You note that he has been a long-term inmate at Brooklyn Bethel, but probably dozens or hundreds of other Witnesses would share that distinction. His being quoted in news reports about the killing of a missionary would be notable if he had been somehow linked with the death. But he wasn't. It is similarly not notable that he "participated in administrative works and visited places around the world together with his wife". Administrative duties are hardly worth noting in an encyclopedia and world travel is quite common now, I believe. LTSally (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling Adams "a long-term inmate at Brooklyn Bethel" makes you look bad, LTSally. Are you saying Watch Tower is a prison or an asylum? --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, it was an unnecessary slight. I did spend some time at a Bethel (Just visiting, as they say on the Monopoly board) and did find it a strange and unsettling place. The women were all like Stepford wives with fixed smiles, there was obsessive attention given to timing, punctuality, dress and cleanliness, there were rules about everything imaginable including the direction of food bowls being passed around the table, a fascination with the lengh of time people had stayed there and the size of rooms allocated to them, a terrible smugness about outsiders and overall, a sense of a life inside an enclosed bubble. I imagine it was a bit like overwintering in Antarctica. And from such unusual places emanate the rules, doctrines and attitudes that govern ordinary Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agenda??

The claim that references have been removed as part of some imagined 'agenda' is patently ridiculous. Most of the third-party sources remain in the article, though have been moved to reduce redundancy in the article. Some information from Watchtower life story articles (which applies to many JWs and is not of particular note) has been removed, though some could be reinstated if it can be demonstrated that it pertains to Adam's actual notability rather than his JW fandom.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor's protestations might be more credible if they did not so closely follow his personal campaign to delete multiple articles related to notable Jehovah's Witnesses...........

If you can indicate notability of any of those individual's in reliable third-party sources, go right ahead. Specifically, please refer to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Passing mention of an individual that simply confirms the person exists or is in a particular role does not meet that criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly tried to entirely suppress this article as well....

To support your accusation that there is an 'agenda' to "suppress" information about Adams, what particularly notable or controversial details exactly do you imagine I specifically desire to "suppress"? Please indicate those details as cited in reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community tends to react with suspicion when an editor targets a single religious group in a focused campaign such as that waged by the now-protesting editor.

You seem to be the only one reacting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the editor's shifting make-it-up-as-he-goes-along rules for supposedly "unacceptable" sources contradict his own earlier statement, to wit: "If you can provide more than merely incidental information (such as lists people who have occupied the position) in reliable third-party sources about him, that would be fine".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop being such a drama queen. "The Wikipedia community tends to react with suspicion when ..." ... ""his personal campaign to delete multiple articles" ... "the editor has repeatedly tried to entirely suppress this article" ... "a focused campaign". When other editors identify and try to remedy the article's deficiencies, you turn it into a soap opera of conspiracy and personal attack. LTSally (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These individuals simply are not notable by Wikipedia standards, and no special agenda is required to realise they do not warrant the Watch Tower fandom AuthorityTam seeks to assign them. Indeed, does AuthorityTam actually imagine that there is some startling amazing facts about this individual that I am trying to "suppress", or that in actuality they just are not notable by Wikipedia standards, evidenced by the quite thin presentation in third-party sources. Additionally, the version AuthorityTam keeps restoring contains several redundant points where various sources that simply indicate Adams as WT president are redistributed through the article (such as the yearbook reference towards the end in AuthorityTam's preferred version) rather than as supporting that simple statement at the beginning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In my experience, far less than 1 percent of the JW population recognizes the name Don Adams. Of this less-than-1-percent, only a small fraction recognize Don Adams as notable compared to the average JW. Don Adams is notable within context of the Watchtower organization's history. As a person, Don Adams meets no extra-Watchtower notability standards I am aware of.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the alleged 'contradiction' that AuthorityTam accuses me of above? Does anyone else perceive it is contradictory (with some other thing I've said??) to say that simple passing mentions of an individual do not constitute encyclopaedic notability?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I see no contradiction as alleged by AuthorityTam. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it's right to keep the articles on Milton George Henschel and Don Alden Adams. It's disappointing to learn that someone tried to delete them. Both are notable. If someone tries to delete them again, I'd appreciate someone letting me know. --Soc8675309 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)