Talk:Nelson H. Barbour

Barbour Photo

The photo (artist's rendering) of Barbour that I've deleted from this page is copyright material and not available for use on this page. Stop posting it until you obtain permission of the copyright holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.226.232 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The images you persist in using are copyrighted! stop it.Italic text .Special:Contributions/71.115.226.232

The anonymous IP editor above has reverted literally all recent improvements to the article, including a proper lede and proper references. I've reinstated all improvements (except the image in question, to avoid that becoming a distraction). While the editor may be very interested in the article subject, please do not revert again without discussion at Talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, the "anonymous IP editor" is one of the authors of the book and article cited as authority for this article. Take my word for it, you're trying to steal copyrighted material. STOP IT! It's unethical and wrong. What is distracting here is your repeated attempts to use copyrighted material without permission. And if you read above you will see I restated the exact reason for deleting the photo.

Ignoring copyright opens you up to civil penalties and limited criminal penalties. Don't be stupid. Check before you use an image. Finding an image though an internet search does not mean you've found material out of copyright. Act responsibly and check the source. If you had, you would have found complaints by the copyright holder posted on the internet.

I appreciate your interest in Watchtower and cognate movement history, but ethics demand that you avoid copyrighted material. Original research, including the acquisition of images, costs more money than you can imagine. Theft of that material through abuse of copyright is wrong. Use more caution in the future.

I write young adult fiction and history. I strongly resent anyone misusing my material, and I'm certain that both the Watchtower Society and Jim Penton object to the use of their copyrighted images on wikipedia.

You have added links to other articles inappropriately, sending readers to the wrong individuals. I've repaired that too. If you had consulted the Barbour biography cited as an authority before you "edited" you would have known about the copyrighted images, and you would not have linked the William H. Ferris mentioned in the article with the later black clergyman of the same name. A desire to improve this article is admirable, lack of caution is not.

I'm not trying to steal anything. I'm trying to improve the article. I've never claimed infallibility and have been glad to see corrections to links etc. I was disappointed to see wholesale reverts, and hope to avoid that in the future. Discussing matters at Talk is certainly a step in the right direction. Incidentally, you may be interested in registering a proper UserID here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

William H. Ferris

The link to William H. Ferris previously made was to the wrong W. H. Harris. The African American minister of that name is not the individual with whom Barbour studied for the ministry. This is noted in Schulz and de Vienne: Nelson Barbour, The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet.

Seventh-day Adventists

This article does not fall within any discussion of Seventh-day Adventism. Barbour was not a Seventh-day Adventist, and, in fact, saw them as out of the light of Christianity.

Barbour's Middle Name

Barbour's middle name isn't Homer. It's Horatio. If you'd bothered to read Schulz and deVinne's biography, cited at the end of this article, you'd know that. Horatio is a familial name used repeatedly by the Barbour (aka Barber) family after immigration to the US. His name is correctly given on patent registration documents filed in the UK. The source is available online and is cited by Schulz in Nelson Barbour, the millennium's forgtten prophet. Stop reverting to nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Name 'Horatio' not found in the linked source. And do not disrupt articles to try to make a WP:POINT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Found reference to Horatio elsewhere, but unclear what establishes 'Horatio' as 'more correct' than 'Homer'. A patent registration isn't exactly a birth certificate. Middle name should therefore be omitted in lead and briefly stated in body text as variously reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There were no Birth Certificates in 1824. No genealogist would expect one; only an inexperienced researcher would. You can consult Schulz and de Vienne's book, the source of much of this article. You will find the research on page 4. You can consult Bennet Woodcroft: Alphabetical Index. It's found in full on google books. The material filed in support of Barbour's 1870 British patent was supplied by himself. He should know his own name, shouldn't he?

That you refuse to accept valid documentation speaks more to your personallity than your skill as a writer and researcher. Barbour's own submission to the British patent authorities should top the Library of Congress Cataloge. The information from which the library of congress drew the name Homer came from Leonidas B. King, the compiler of Washed in His Blood, not from Barbour. King got it wrong, and from him, so did the library of congress. A little scholarly research would have told you this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have correctly indicated that the name is variously reported. The appearance of one of the names on a patent application does nothing to confirm his birth name. All it does is establishes what middle name he used at the time he filed the application. He may have had two middle names. He may have gone by a traditional family middle name later in his life. You just don't know. All we know is that he is variously reported as having either middle name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The ONLY source for the name Homer is the library of congress cat. all other notices of the name come from there. The library of congress reference comes from the copyright application as submitted AFTER HIS DEATH by L. King. There is NO indication of a second middle name. YOU are reaching. Your research is poor and so is your reasoning. Information submitted by Barbour trumps material submitted by Mr. King who guessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What is your basis for the claim that King 'guessed'? I am not reaching. I have accurately stated that the name is variously reported without dogmatically asserting one name above the other, as you are doing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not dogmatically asserting anything. I'm rubbing your nose in valid historical documentation, information supplied by barbour himself. King's history is recounted in Schulz and de Vienne. Read it. It's on pages 133-134. King, a newer associate, would have had no way of knowing Barbour's middle name. Barbour avoided using it. He signed most documents as N. H. Barbour. (Yes there are documents out there with his real signature. One is used as in illustration in the Barbour bio.) YOU are defending an indefensable position. The motive seems to be your pride as an "editor." The standards of evidence used by professional historians (I am one) are met by the documentation I've submitted. YOU don't wish to be seen as the amature you are. I wrote most of this article. I've done the orignal research. YOU are full of what ifs and speculation to support an mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly some hubris here. I'm sure you're a 'very good professional historian'. Now that your ego's had some stroking, we can get on with things. I am not supporting "an mistake", nor do I care if you consider me an "amature". All I've said is there is ambiguity. You have no way of knowing what King may have known. You are simply relying on a name Barbour wrote on a single document. And you shouldn't be doing original research for articles here anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also deleted your footnote to Schulz and deVienne's book as misrepresenting the contents. You have obviously not read the book. It does not support what you claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I never added a 'footnote'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion has been lodged.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want a professional's opinion you may email Dr. de Vienne or Dr. Schulz. Their email is available through their public blog: truthhistory. blogspot .com. There simply are no other experts to consult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to email me. Nelson Horatio Barbour is supported by our research. The name Homer is in error. -R. M. de Vienne — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMdeVienne (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, editor who created an account solely for this purpose. Aside from the fact there is no way to confirm your identity, there is neither any confirmation for why the alternative name is necessarily "in error" or whether 'your' research is necessarily superior. The neutral approach would be to simply cite that the name is variously reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

f you need to verify who I am you may reach me through our history blog. truthhistory .blogspot .com .If you need to validate the worth of our research, you can read our book or you can contact controversialists such as James Penton or Barbra Anderson who have no reason to "love" our research. On the other hand, if you read our invitation only blog, you'd find yourself in conference with researchers including a professor from UC Davis, a circuit overseer, other published writers, including one who writes some of the history articles for The Watchtower. Our research speaks for itself.RMdeVienne (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen nothing in the book that confirms the middle name one way or the other. All I've seen is that at some point Barbour wrote a particular name on a patent application. It doesn't confirm his name by birth, or give any real indication why one name should be dogmatically selected above the other, or why the name King provides 'must' be a 'guess'. The speed with which you created an account and responded here makes me wonder if a CheckUser should be requested for the new account and the previous anonymous IP account.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you haven't read the book.50.106.8.144 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the relevant page online. I don't really care what you 'suggest'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So you read one page? And where did you find it? You've made up your mind not on the basis of solid evidence, but to save your pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.144 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've 'made up on my mind' on the basis that the name is variously reported, and should be stated as such. You on the other hand seem to have a vested interest in promoting one name above the other. That coupled with the speed of the other editor appearing leads me to believe you are promoting your own original research in this article, which is a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are incapable of reason. A document the details of which were furnished by Barbour trumps a library card entry created after his death. Would it suit you to say: "The Library of Congress reports his middle name as Homer. The entry was made several years after Barbour's death"? That would present the alternate name, and it would present my reason for rejecting it in favor of an original document the details of which were provided by Barbour himself. So you know, the library of congress is reviewing the entry. That's a process that takes months. When the review is finished, assuming they change the entry to Horatio, what will you do then?50.106.8.144 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I believe that there was a request for a third opinion and I wanted to let you know that I am willing to provide one. Before I get to deep in to this, I would just like to ensure that both parties are interested in hearing a non-binding third opinion as part of the dispute resolution process. Please indicate so below, and once both parties do, I will provide my thoughts on the matter. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm another editor here to offer a third opinion as requested at WP:3O. I agree with the position advanced by Jeffro77. Per our policy WP:BURDEN, editors who want to include content in Wikipedia (here, the assertion that the subject's middle name is definitely "Horatio") are obliged to provide reliable secondary sources for that content if challenged. The person(s) making this claim have not done so, instead relying on loud and rude assertions of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.  Sandstein  08:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read footnote 1 you will see the documentation for the middle name Horatio. This includes a patent application submited by Barbour that includes his full name, Nelson Horatio Barbour. Barbour certainly knew his own name.50.106.8.144 (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The patent record is available from google books. This is something you can examine for yourself.50.106.8.144 (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You're just going around in circles with your own interpretation of your own original research. Refer to previous response.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with your previous response is that it is speculation and not a response. Consider this summary:

1. The original of this article had the name as Nelson Horatio Barbour. Jeff is the one who made the change to Homer. Jeff should support his change.

2. Jeff does not support his change, but I can tell you that he drew the name Homer from the Library of Congress Catalogue.

3. Washed in his Blood, published in 1908 – some years after Barbour’s death – is the only of his works to receive copyright. It is a compilation of Barbour’s articles made by Leonidis B. King. Barbour’s will left 4000 dollars to further his work. This book was the result. That makes the card cat entry dependent on second-hand posthumous information.

4. The information provided for the British version of one of Barbour’s inventions was provided by Barbour. This is first hand information and more creditable because it comes from the man himself. It is only speculation to suggest that Barbour had more than one middle name. He never used any form of his name that would suggest that.

5. The application details were reprinted in a book in 1870, within his life time. The book is easily available. It is a good, solid secondary source dependent directly on an original source connected to Barbour.

6. Since it was Jeff who made the change (I only changed it back on solid evidence) he should support the name Homer with creditable evidence beyond a single card catalogue entry made years after Barbour’s death. What other evidence for the name Homer is there? Evidence of the same quality as that I’ve provided?

7. The New York grave index also lists his middle name as Horatio.

8. His genealogy shows that the name Horatio reoccurs in the family on a regular basis from the 1600s.

10. Nothing beyond a copyright form filed in 1908 by King, a meat packer whose sole claim to fame is that he was the only one who would compile Barbour’s articles, supports "Homer." King and five women started a new magazine that lasted at best two or three issues, spending Barbour’s estate. His history hardly makes him a creditable witness. This story is found in the Rochester newspapers. If you look, you can find the pages online.

11. Barbour should know his own name.50.106.8.144 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Central to the claims above is the false premise that it was me who originally changed the name to Homer in the article. I didn't. The claims about me in the list immediately above are lies. The article gave his middle name as Homer since the article was created, by a different editor, in 2005. If you can't get your facts straight about that, it doesn't lend much support to your credibility for things that happened over 100 years ago. Further, you seek to impugn the credibility of King, though you state that King had access to Barbour's materials as a direct outcome of what was stated in Barbour's will.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The record indicates that you changed the name to Homer. It's in the articles history. What the original artilce said is not relevant. You made the change. You did so without providing support for the name Homer. You still haven't provided support for the name. King had access to magazine articles. The issues of the Herald of the Morning he used still exist. That the articles exist has nothing to do with the name. Either support the name Homer with some sort of valid historical evidence, or admit that you've failed to make your case. It is not a lie to say you deleted the name Horatio which has been at the head of this article since what? 2007, I think. And that you did so without providing any proof that it is Barbour's real name. Provide support for you claim. That, of course, will be hard for you to do, since there is none beyond a card catalouge entry made after Barbour's death. The only reference that comes from Barbour himself is the patent application.

You are substituting personal attacks for proof. That's a fail in anyone's book. If you want to revert the article to where it was in 2006, be my guest. Then it will match in quality and accuracy the article on C. T. Russell, which is wildly inaccurate in places. This is a put up or shut up moment. Prove the name Homer to be correct. Prove it correct from evidence of the same quality as Barbour's own patent application. If you can't you are arguing for the sake of argument.50.106.8.144 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint continues to be irrelevant, as I have repeatedly stated that in light of the available sources, the article should simply say the middle name is variously reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Deletions

I propose the deletion of the bibliographic references to my book and article. While the book written by Mr. Schulz and myself is the only biography of Barbour available, the recent edits to this article tend to misrepresent its contents. That it is referenced as the entry’s main source suggests that I agree with the article as it now stands or with recent edits. I do not.

The article written by us and linked to in the Bibliography section is dated and does not represent current research. It was an appeal for research help made to a small community of experts. The article represents our research as it was. Additional research moved us beyond that article. It should be deleted as not representing best, current research.

While Mr. Schulz, my co-author, and I appreciate that the link to our history blog was well intended, the blog (truthhistory . blogspot .com) hasn’t focused on Barbour since the publication of our book. Much of the information found there when the link was made has been removed and our research taken to a private, invitation-only blog. So the link is no longer relevant to this article. It is no longer the Barbour Biography project it once was but is the current face of our research for book two in this series, A Separate Identity: Development of Eccelsia Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower 1870-1887. The blog is cited in a number of other articles, especially on the Italian version of Wikipedia. I have no objection to those references.

While there is extensive additional material on Barbour and Russell on our private blog, it is not open to general access. Any links or references to the private blog should be removed.

A week should be adequate time for anyone interested to respond.RMdeVienne (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the article would suffer without the references. The link to the history blog remains important because Rachael and her fellow editors continue to post material relevant to Barbour. Case in point is the post last July showing the advertisment for Barbour's Tent Meeting in Buffalo. Rachael, would you be willing to footnote the article, obviating the need for a reference to your book? I've said my piece here and in person. We should respect her wishes and delete the references.50.106.8.144 (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Links to the blog should never have been added in the first place. As such, of course they should be removed. The book can continue to be used as a source, unless it does not meet the criteria for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeff misunderstands what I want. I am not seeking permission for a reference to my book to remain on this article. I object to my writings (Book and article and blog) being used to support an article that is slowly being turned to trash history.

The insinuation that our book doesn't meet scholarly standards is part of a pattern of behavior. We have received favorable reviews from such disparate writers as Barbara Anderson, James Penton, an Italian historian who is a Witness, a professor at USC, and Jan Stilson, CoGGC historian. We've received negative mentions from Bible Students who see Barbour as a to-be-hated apostate and who fault us for having written his biography. I'm pleased with the mix. Our work is cited in The Biographical Encyclopedia: History of the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith and in various academic papers. I am not seeking permission for my work to stay connected to this article, but I am seeking a consensus that will allow me to remove it from the article with the expectation that it will not be restored.RMdeVienne (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been no 'insinuation' about the book. I fairly clearly stated that whilst the blog cannot be used, the book can. I understand that the purported author of the source 'doesn't want' their book used as a source, but that is immaterial here. Either the book constitutes a reliable source, or it does not. I don't really care what the editor wants at this point. The article requires neither permission nor endorsement to use a particular source, so unless it is established that the book is not a reliable source, it may be used. If discussion at Talk establishes that a source is not being used properly to support a particular statement, then that statement should not cite the source, but there is no premise for an author to remove reference to a source throughout an article on the basis that an author doesn't like other material in the article. In this case, the source does state that the middle name is reported as either Horatio or Homer. The version of the lead I intend to restore[2] correctly indicates that the middle name is variously reported and that Barbour supplied his middle name as Horatio on the patent application, and this is consistent with what is stated by the source in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• deVienne has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats by e-mail to bureaucrats. The IP remains unblocked, but I'm within a hair's breadth of blocking him as well. So far, most of the recent problems have been created by deVienne, including refactoring here and on my talk page. Although I understand that deVienne claims there are two separate individuals, her and her uncle, but even if that's true, deVienne was/is using the IP's computer when making certain edits here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the blog link. Now, please remove the bibliographic references to my book and article. I have no objection to use of my book in a footnote that cites specific pages. I would like the section headed Bibliography and its contents deleted.RMdeVienne (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section with the understanding that you're not able to do so because you're not an auto-confirmed user and can't edit the protected page. This is a courtesy, despite your 'request' being phrased as an order. You and/or your associates involved in the research or publication of your book should not have added original research to this article in the first place, especially without disclosing your conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the reference. If you dislike what was added to this article, aren't you free to restore it to it's original 2006 format? I certainly have no objections. I'm not sure anyone would. Also, you're misreading what I wrote above. I intended no "order." But I do appreciate that you removed the section "bibliography."RMdeVienne (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for anything so dramatic as restoring an old copy from 6 years ago. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? The article isn't exactly as you would like. Life goes on. Merry Christmas.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)