Talk:William Henry Conley

Conley Research

We should list areas where further research is needed. Interpretations of the research is useful and needed but please just state this concisely. Please bear in mind this is a history of W H Conley. The info in this area hopefully will be able to enhance the Conley bio and may have an impact on other Wiki articles. Conviently placed link will help researchers.

Article importance

Rather than edit-warring over this, might we start a discussion? My argument is that in terms of both the subject of Christianity and the context of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, William Henry Conley is of low importance. He held the position of president in the unincorporated Watch Tower Society for three years and disappeared from the history of the Bible Students immediately. He appears to have played no significant part in the development of the society or its activities and doctrines. He makes only rare appearances in written histories of Jehovah's Witnesses. Despite the repeated removal of a tag seeking a source for the claim, there is nothing to support the claim that he "helped organize and provided funding for the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society". He remains unknown to almost every Witness and judging by the depth of this article, seems notable only for his involvement with the Christian Missionary Alliance. Under the definition of the importance scale, Conley would need to be a subject vital to the understanding of Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses. I contend he is not and better suits "Low", a ranking defined thus: "The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Christianity (and Jehovah's Witnesses)". BlackCab (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Conley is of Low importance for both categories. The assessment criteria are quite clear, so there isn't much room for interpreting Conley's importance any other way for these two subjects (though his importance might be Medium within the scope of Bible Students).

According the criteria for assessment of JW-related articles, Conley is within the category of "Few readers outside the Jehovah's Witnesses field or that are not adherents to it may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article." Even many JWs know little or anything of Conley, and knowledge of him is not required to have an in depth understanding of JWs. His importance in regard to JWs is quite definitely Low.

Within the broader scope of Christianity, Conley had an extremely minor impact, and according to the article assessment scale for the Christianity WikiProject's assessment, he fits in the scope of "Few readers outside the Christianity field or that are not adherents to atheism may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article." Knowledge of Conley is neither required nor notable in regard to having a reasonable understanding of Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I decided not to add information to the ZWTTS section. JW and exJW seem to have a passionate opinion about the matter. Conley was the founder and first president of what would become your church. How he influenced CTR or modern day JW is a matter of opinion. I don’t think you would deny that he was the founding president in your churches formative years.

BTW-I read your user page carefully Blackcab. I really can not reconcile several of your comments above with your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"your church". LOL. Who are you talking to?? Neither of the people who have commented at this page are members of the religion in question, so your implied assumption of bias is invalid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not JW or exJW Jeff? Blackcab is - look at the user page. I am not JW or exJW now that we are saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. The fact remains that 'founder' is not synonymous with 'president', and Conley didn't found the Watch Tower Society on his own. Further, JWs didn't exist at the time, so his presidency of the early WTS still has only passing relevance to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying CTR was founding secretary and Conley was the founding president? That is rediculous. The "founding president" of the ZWTTS is of top importance to JW. You can deny Conley in any article you want on Wikipedia but not on this page. Denying the relevance of history to modern day JW will not make the founding president less important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is indeed ridiculous. Both were founders of the Society, and the labels "founding president" and "founding secretary" are irrelevant, because a person can be president of something without being that thing's only founder (compare George Washington), and a person need not be the president of something to co-found it.

Additionally, as the president of the Society over 30 years prior to the formation of JWs, Conley had little impact on the JWs (and there is little evidence that he had much doctrinal input in the Bible Student movement either), and knowledge of Conley is not an important aspect for knowledge of JWs. Re-read the assessment criteria for importance of JW-related articles until you understand them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If your only contribution is to diminish an article or stultify the person then please stop. You both have added Nothing of substance or significance to this article. I wouldnt mind your meddling with the importance indicator if you would provide results of your own research or at least add something to the conversation. As it stands you are simply scanning Wiki Bible Student material which has no bearing on Conley or the ZWTTS. If you want to aggrandize CTR then prove that Barbour, Conley and his wife, Stetson, Storrs or whoever was around him at the time saw CTR as their pastor or leader of a Bible Student movement.

CTR was not at the center of things in the 1870s and 1880s. In fact he appears to be brought in and helped by others then cast off - there was something wrong with the man at the time. This of course is beside the point because this article is about William Henry Conley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the congregation attended by Conley had elected Russell its pastor years before Conley became president of the yet-unincorporated Watch Tower Society (The Watchtower, July 15, 1950, page 213, "This study class grew into a congregation of students of the Bible to which [Russell] preached, and in October of 1876 he was elected the spiritual shepherd or pastor of this class of Bible students, there in Pittsburgh, Pa."). So, there is evidence that Conley considered himself a mere "sheep" to Russell's shepherding, and it seems reasonable that Conley agreed to be president of the yet-unincorporated Society to smooth its workaday operations rather than found a spiritual mission. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You say Conley was part of a congregation which elected Russell. Can you provide proof of this? Also did this congregation or group of students have a church or did these pre 1880 meetings just take place on the street corner or park among whoever would listen? I dont think anyone has ever seen the source of information which states Conley was a mere "sheep" of Russell or even a follower. I only see prof that Russell was Conleys secretary. Please continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, implicitly. Regarding their 1880 Last Supper commemoration, Russell includes Conley when he refers to "us here in Pittsburgh" (Allegheny is part of Pittsburgh, and only had one congregation at the time, and Russell had been elected its pastor years earlier).

* Watch Tower, April 1880, page 8, Reprints 94, "It has for several years been the custom of many of us here in Pittsburgh to do this; i.e., remember the Passover, and eat the emblems of our Lord's body and blood, and it has ever been an occasion of solemn pleasure and communion, and was particularly so this year. We met on the night of March 24th, as usual, at the house of Brother and Sister Conley (it being the most commodious)"

At least as late as 1894, Conley is quoted as explicitly siding with Russell regarding certain controversies; Russell introduced Conley's letter by merely identifying Conley as another "brother who was a member of the early Allegheny Bible Class".

* Watch Tower, June 11, 1894, page 176, Reprints 1663, "Another brother who was a member of the early Allegheny Bible Class writes as follows: MY DEAR BRO. IN CHRIST:--I have read carefully pages 92 to 119 of A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings with special interest, and must say my recollection of events named by you are very much like your own; and while there are details, in some cases, of which I know nothing, and hence cannot speak as to them, yet I do know there were such transactions as you name, and at the dates given. I am quite conversant with some of the dealings, and am surprised at the very merciful manner in which you speak of those with whom you were associated. "The servant is not greater than his Lord." "If they have done these things in a green tree, what will they do in the dry?"--"Perils among false brethren," etc., etc. As to myself, you can rely on one thing; viz., All reports stating that I deny the ransom are absolutely false. The no-ransom people may talk, but they "have nothing in me." As ever, Yours in Him, W. H. CONLEY."

If Conley had been equal or superior to Russell in the founding of Watch Tower, it seems obvious that Russell's identification of Conley as simply another "brother who was a member of the early Allegheny Bible Class" would have been startlingly disrespectful to readers who knew them both.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you are reading this. Read the very first Zions Watch tower in 1879 and read the attacks in the Conspiracy Exposed. Sound familiar? You will better understand how CTR acted out against others and used the Watchtower. Conley handed over the reigns of the Watchtower out of fear of malicious attacks from CTR. You will notice the 1885 tract does not attack Conley (1884 is missing) Conley was a director of a local Bank and a man of importance and reputation so he would not risk his family name being dragged through the mud by CTR. I do get the impression that Conley loved CTR despite his many shortcomings. Like I said before people tried to bring him in and take him under their wings. Russell was not born a man you know. I hope these things do not offend you, I want you too look beyond the history CTR would write for himself. It is good for JW to embrace their first president and not reject him. They will be spiritually stronger because of it. Respectfully, Brad - 24.60.101.113 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source for the claim that "Conley handed over the reigns of the Watchtower out of fear of malicious attacks from CTR"? Irrespective, it is unnecessary (and dishonest in view of the Watch Tower affiliation) to obscure the fact that Conley had connections with Russell's Bible study group. I have re-added the specific group that held their Eucharist celebration at the Conley's residence, specifically the Allegheny Bible students (note small 's').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, whether JWs might hypothetically be "spiritually stronger" for 'embracing' 'their' first president (actually the Bible Students first president) has nothing at all to do with the Conley article in regard to the JW Wikipedia Project's assessment criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A little late in the discussion and largely irrelevant, but the official history of the organization, for JWs to hold, was published in "Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" (and it ignores part of the known early doctrinal development history). The JWs in general are not encouraged to research using publications not originating from their Faithful and discreet slave, and no re-release of the early publications occurred or was planned. You could be mistaken by thinking that an accurate history of their church is very important to most members... 66.11.179.30 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to say that your point is entirely irrelevant. Why discuss the attitudes of modern JWs in an article about Conley? (That's a rhetorical question.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The above comment probably should have been indented one tab stop further, for it was a reply to "They will be spiritually stronger because of it", which assumes a particular attitude. I hope that this clears up the context of the reply for you. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but still not relevant. The 'spiritual' edification of JWs is not the purpose of this or any other Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As one of the primary assessors around here, who works particularly often with Christianity, it has always been my belief that the rating of the more specific child project would be probably higher than that of Christianity in general, except in clear cases where the subject is of significant importance to Christianity beyond his given tradition, like maybe Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II. It should also be noted that the importance rating is not be praise or belittle a subject, but rather as a rough indication where the article might be placed in a theoretical outline of the topic. So, for instance, immediate daughter articles of Jehovah's Witnesses would get one rating less than that article itself, etc. For what it's worth, I think some of the people involved in the founding of some of the individual churches are not rated particularly high for Christianity, given the relative size and impact of those churches. And a "Low" priority should not be taken as being a denigration; probably about half of the articles relative to Christianity could be arguably seen as being at the Low importance rating. That doesn't mean that the articles are not important, just that they are not among the most "core" content relative to Christianity. Nor does it mean that the groups involved would not be interested in developing the content or contributing to discussion. Factually, some projects, like MILHIST, have eliminated the importance rating entirely. I urged keeping it here because, at least to me, it is easier to "outline" content relative to churches than it is content regarding, for instance, the military history of Africa, where determining what the "core" articles are and which battles or wars are of greater or lesser importance can be very difficult. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if we should judge each president and give him an importance rating. I would be happy if they were all rated equally. Setting one president to high and another to low is what caused the issue we have now.

Jeffro - There is only mention of President now. You continue to enter Bible Student wording with no references. Please provide proof that Conley was a Bible Student if you want to add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.101.113 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Though they didn't specifically call themselves "Bible Students" until a bit later, it was still part of Russell's Bible Student movement. The Memorial was held by the Bible study group, not Russell's/Conley's printing company.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point about how the articles are rated. The rating is not a "judgement" of each president; it is a rating of how relevant the article is within the scopes of JWs & Christianity. The article would have a higher importance rating for the Bible Students series of articles. Please re-read the assessment criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed founder. I compromised but you reverted the new language. The founder issue is over now, right?

The next issues deals with the Bible Students group led by CTR. I am sure it is of the highest importance for Jehova Witnesses. This has no referencable meaning for Conleys society. There is a ZWTS with Conley at the helm and not CTR. This is proven fact that you need too come to grips with so we can mve on. There is no proof of the Bible Student group lead by CTR during the ZWTS Conley presidency. William Conley and is wife Sarah simply were not sheep of CTR. It is far more likley that CTR inherited an organization, printing business, direction and doctrine from Conley. CTR wrote the history and controlled the later organization so the history is going to be muddled... BACnet (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bible study group that Russell and others started (the Allegheny Bible students, which included Conley - there probably wasn't an authority structure with Russell as 'leader' at this early stage, and it is irrelevant here anyway) was the beginning of the Bible Student movement. They didn't initially call it the Bible Student movement, just like they didn't call World War I by that name when it first happened, but Russell's early study group is still the origin of the Bible Student movement, which predates Conley's presidency of Zion's Watch Tower. Russell was already promoting his teachings at the time that he and others ("we") met at the Conleys residence for their Memorial celebration, as explicitly stated in the April issue of Zion's Watch Tower, so the Memorials held at the Conley residence were quite definitely associated specifically with Russell, regardless of whether Conley was one of Russell's 'sheep'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I read carefully what you are saying and I believe you are making many assumptions from the very limited amount of information you are quoting. You seem to associate everything with CTR. The Conley’s held a memorial in what appears to be the churches first Bethel or Kingdom Hall. Many have written about the residence and the goings on their. Your interpretation is that CTR was simply using this house for his ends and all the people who came were lined up behind CTR. You must see the error in this thinking! You consistently remove references regarding Conleys home mission. You do this because it challenges your notion that Conley was acting without Russell. Conley acting without Russell is historically accurate and a good thing no matter how you look at it! Problematic ZWTS change of leadership has been a part of JW since the beginning but come on at least give Sara and William Conley their due credit. 207.76.105.235 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Watch Tower specifically said that their Memorial event was held at the Conley's home, rather than "the churches [sic] first Bethel or Kingdom Hall" (the term "Kingdom Hall" was coined by Rutherford in 1935). If those sources are not correct, provide alternative sources rather than asserting your opinion and claiming that 'I associate everything with CTR'.

I don't know what reference(s) you believe I "consistently remove" from the article. Apart from a badly needed copyedit a few months back, in the last few days the only thing I removed was a quote that didn't add much value to the article, but retained that reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see removal of information and addition of information which diminishes Conley aggrandizes Russell. You have been editing articles about Jehovas Witnesses for a long time. Your version of early history peppered among these articles is very questionable. Just keep that out of the Conley or Allegheny City and Pittsburgh articles for now and I wont challenge what you have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Provide evidence of your claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro - You were given as much proof as a discussion board should have. If you can not or refuse to raise question then really what are you doing here, to stop the conversation? BradSp (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm Jeffro has been accused of bias from every side, (which circumstantially attests to his non-bias) and usually by people with pre-formed opinions. Your slant is unknown to me, I mean is there a movement around which reveres Conley as a prophet or founder? I can only dimly recall any mention of Conley in any WT publications. He is in no way considered a significant figure in the history of JWs, although evidently there are sources available which document his life and writings (including the early Watchtowers, incidentally these are not reprinted by JWs but by various 'Russellite' groups- not meant in any pejorative sense, I just don't know a better term for them).

Now I cannot claim vast expertise in regards to the period in question (although I have read extensively about it from various sources including non-JW ones), but your asseveration as to the dominant role played by Conley runs directly contra to the official history of JWs, and I am highly sceptical of it. The recent DVD recounting the early history of JWs (covering pre WT figures like Storrs and others), if I recall correctly, doesn't mention Conley at all. This doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an article, merely that the burden of proof is upon you I think as advocate of a higher rating on the importance scale. Incidentally I would guess that more than 99% of Witnesses have never heard of him.

Thanks Eusebius12. I have pleaded with BradSp repeatedly and at length to provide additional sources regarding Conley's involvement with the Bible Students to support his various theories about the relationship between Conley and Russell. JW literature has mentioned Conley only once (Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p. 576) in at least the last 40 years, and then only a single passing reference to the presidency of the unincorporated Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, with no elaboration about the man. He is therefore not particularly significant within the scope of the JW WikiProject. I have previously suggested that Conley may be more important within the scope of a Bible Students ('Russellite') WikiProject, if one existed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries Jeffro77, and your further comments/suggestions are sound. BradSp's contributions seem very like original research, and if not all he needs to do is provide further information to establish his claims (and not hearsay and insistent 'pronouncements of fact'). Eusebius12 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be right regarding usage of original reseach. The problem is a book was written based on what Russel said and this is taken as a 'pronouncements of fact' The articles that tell the story of early Watch Tower history are based off of what Russell said. The articles about early history are not based on fact but on self aggrandizement and this is very willingly promulgated across the Wikipedia articles.

One should be careful about what they accept as fact on Wikipedia regarding early ZWTS history because chances are Russell rewrote history and Wikipedia editors are diligently passing this off as fact. BradSp (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you still don't properly understand the criteria for inclusion. Please read WP:Verifiability. The opening sentence in that core Wikipedia policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." As requested many times before, if you have sources to either counter or supplement existing information, please provide it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets be clear – we are talking about your Russell content here. The current content on Wikipedia about early Watch Tower history is a simply rewrite of what Russell SAID after the fact. Regurgitating what CTR Russell claimed later in life in articles does not make it true. You have failed to argue this point and the content perpetuates his exaggerations. I have never posted content according to the aggrandizing attempts of Russell. 24.147.97.64 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who you're referring to, anonymous editor. In any case, the content that is there is what is presented in the available sources. If you have information from other sources that counters or supplements existing information, provide it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are of course also welcome to provide reliable sources that dispute the veracity of claims by or about Russell. However, you are not welcome to assert that the sources are wrong—even if they are—merely because you don't like them. If you disagree or do not understand why this is the case, read WP:Verifiability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the claim that the article contains "your Russell content" (whether you refer to me, or to some other editor) is spurious, as it is the sources that you are contending, not any original information from editors here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Who founded Watch Tower Society?

The issue of who founded the society has to be based on reliable sources. The 120-page tract "A Conspiracy Exposed", issues as a special issue of Zion's Watch Tower on April 25, 1894, available here, notes on page 55: "The Society was formed in 1881, at the time of the free distribution of 1,400,000 copies of the pamphlet, Food for Thinking Christians, now out of print. It consisted of five of the Lord's children, and its affairs were entirely in my charge. Later, in 1884, at the insistence of friends of the cause, who advised that matters be put on a legal footing so that the work might not be interrupted in case of my sudden death, the Society appled for a charter under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania ..." (emphasis mine)

The author of that statement, obviously, was Russell. If there are contradictory sources that assert that the society was Conley's, that he organized it, founded it and funded it, please provide them. BlackCab (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Conley did not seem to follow one church. He was highly social and valued close relationships. He was very humble and giving. The memorial at the Conley house was about joyous individual relatinships with each other and equally joyous individual relationships with god. The CTR Bible Student movement with CTR at the center failed the test of grace in which William and Sara ran their home over the years. I imagine during these events CTR was the quiet fellow in the corner planning great things for an organization and for himself.

This makes CTR look bad in his time of desperation because later historians can see CTR was not honest in saying these things. We know now he was just a secretary of the group. CTR may have been trying to protect the reputatin of an der Conley... I dont know. Blackcab - I woould not use that source because it will point fingers at the character of CTR. BACnet (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a simple question. I agree that Russell's claim may not be accurate, but are there other sources on which the article can be based? It may be that Russell wanted to found a society to publish and distribute tracts and to continue to write them. He may have seen Conley as a person to fulful an administrative role while he, as secretary and treasurer, wrote the tracts, just as corporate boards might appoint someone to head their board because of their expertise in running corporations. That's just a scenario; the point is, what sources exist? BlackCab (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, this is the Bible Student movement that CTR founded. I think modern day JW are disconnected from their ZWTS roots. They should be proud of their first president and what he did offer and who he was. Personally, I will not build upon the Conley ZWTS section. BACnet (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the motives of other editors here. I'm not sure anyone needs to be "proud" of "their" first president and I don't think the article needs to reflect that. This is not a shrine to Conley, just an encyclopedia article to assemble facts about him. So far we seem to be short of some facts and you have so far you have failed to respond to a fairly basic question on his involvement with the Watch Tower Society. He was president of the association, is almost invisible in Watch Tower Society histories and publications and vanished from the society after three years. I certainly don't care one way or the other about whether it was Russell or Conley who founded it, and I'm not interested in the reputations of either, but if the article is going to make that claim, it needs to be based on verifiable sources. At the moment it says simply that he was the first president which, in the absence of other facts, is sufficient. BlackCab (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking things too personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab didn't seem to be taking this particularly "personally" above. Instead, he asked that you provide sources. And instead of providing sources, you make aggrandizing claims about Conley ("social", "valued close relationships" [not remarkable], "very humble and giving", "joyous individual relatinships [sic] with each other and ... with god"—basically, 'all round nice guy, yadda yadda') followed by denigrating claims about Russell ("CTR ... failed the test of grace", "CTR ... in the corner planning great things for an organization and for himself" or 'sneaky bad guy'), any of which might be true (or not), but you have supplied no sources. Wikipedia isn't the correct forum for your speculation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have carefully looked over all your edits, Blackcabs and others regarding early Watch Tower history. Edits are made with no references and tend to support a history that either does not exist or is based off of inconsistent, spurrious claims. In many cases they lack basic common sense or respect for other historic characters. Fact - The current history is POV, a Russell point of view, and it it has been meticulously protected by people on Wikipedia. A clear double standard is being used edit articles.

Discussion Area:

Isn’t the discussion area used to discuss the article and synthesize information? How else will we understand the understand schools of thought so that we can come to consensus. We need to be contextual about what CTR said and what modern doctrine allows to be said when writing a neutral story on Conley and the history of CTR, Bible Students etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources, not just speculation, to contextualise Conley or Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was written by me and the references provided by me. Jeffro, Blackcab - you guys added really nothign except twist the words around to make Russell look good. I am very disapointed with how you guys took part in this article. BradSp (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is rather like that. Problem is, original research, or fringe opinions should not be given equal weight in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible Students/students and Conley

Because there is no verifiable source which confirms Conley was a Bible Student and CTR was the teacher or pastor of this movement I think this term has no place in early ZWTS or Conley articles. I think language mentioning Bible Students takes away from the understanding of the organization that Conley ran. In early writings it is clear that there were no "Bible Students" In the early writings there was no Pastor Russell either. We have a plenty of writings where this would have come out but it did not. All we have now are very sketchy writings from CTR under very suspicious circumstances. If anyone would like to create a history of the Jehovah Witnesses according to Charles Taz Russell, they may do so but please label this history as such. Cleaning up CTR propaganda from this article is really taxing and is a disservice to Jehovah Witnesses and the history of Allegheny City and the city of Pittsburgh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please supply alternative sources rather than making claims of propaganda. I have no special reason to believe that everything said by CTR is necessarily true, but please at least provide a basis for your claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not provide alternative sources for ZWTS or build upon this section until the Jehovah Witnesses are able to cope with dea

First recorded use of Bible Students. First use of this proper noun in connection with Charles Russell and within the Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence is below. The word was not used when Conley was president and it was not used in the 1885 issue during CTRs first year. Hope this helps those trying to date “Russell’s” movement.

1. October 1886. page 7. Kind words of Commendation.

2. January February issue Plan of the Ages page 8

3. June 1896 issue

4. September 1st 1904 - Letters to editor signed by Bible Student

5. February 1st 1905 - Letters to editor signed by Bible Student

6. August 15th 1905 Bible Student Convention mentioned.

7. February 1st 1906 clearly established

I would place the start of the Bible student movement when the participants are aware of the movement. I guess if I were receiving the Watch Tower between August 1905 and February 1906 I would know that I was part of a movement. For those more suspicious eyebrows would be raised in September of 1904 and then again in February of 1905.

I am still trying to interpret this. Conley was not a follower of Russell and the Bible Student thing came later. Maybe it is safe to say the Bible Student movement was born out of the first society. The First society of couse was influenced by the usual Adventist suspects. ling with this history. I will only remove unreliably sourced information or information which places Russell centric spin on Conley history. Also be careful with your live links to other Charles centric articles. I am not contesting these histories but these links should not be used as a way to propagate a Russell Centric view of the pre 1884 Zion’s Watch Tower. There was a change in leadership and like the history of the Watchtower changes in leadership can be scandalous. This does not mean the new leadership can rewrite history to the glory of the victor. 207.76.105.235 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit fails to recognise the distinction between the title 'Bible Students', and the 'Bible Student movement', which wasn't initially called 'Bible Students' during its early development. As previously stated, whether Russell was considered a 'leader' at that early stage is irrelevant, and your claims of 'aggrandizing' Russell are equally irrelevant.

If someone said to a soldier in 1914 that they were involved in "World War I", they would also likely raise their eyebrows enquiringly. Just as what happened in 1914 is now called "World War I", your allusion to calling someone a "Bible Student" in 1904 or earlier as being confusing is equally irrelevant, because the development of the movement is known of now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about 'live links', there is no reason to suppress connection with Russell by not even linking to the article, and I have no reason to accede to your demand.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you dont want to clean up the linked article history I will not object. But I will edit the linked articles which provide a tainted history if they do not belong in the Conley Article - bear in mind this is a Conley article and must be Conley history. I hope the history from the Conley article will eventually become history consistent with the other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources that support your theory of 'tainted history'. Maybe the CTR history is tainted, but we can't just take your word for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly shows (with references) that Russell did not provide an up front historic account of the ZWTS. Why he did this is not known but I think it is pretty clear Russell was protecting his legacy. Other sources beside Russell need to be provided. Also a rewrite of Russell material with the same source is just as tainted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't at all show that "Russell did not provide an up front historic account". What you "think is pretty clear" is unimportant unless you can back it up with sources. Several times, I have specifically invited you to provide additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The casual reader may see your request for sources as proof that someone is not providing sources. Wikipedia should come up with a vandalism term for this kind of behavior in the discussion area. The article has plenty of sources, the discussion area is for discussion. BradSp (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not disputing the sources that are there. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm saying that you haven't provided sources for your claims, suspicions and speculations about Russell's motives or the alleged dispute between Conley and Russell. We can't just take your word for it that there was a conspiracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Conley and the Printing business

1. The Conley house was in a residential district of row houses however the house appears to house the Thomas G state printer - Printer business was located at 1532 Fremont See census records of 1902 for the address specifed. Sarah Conley appears to have sold the property. This may mean that the carriage house (it was huge) housed printing machinery. 50 Fremont = 1532 Fremont = 1532 Brighton Pl BTW.

2. Conley’s uncle trained him in the printing business. This appears to be the first career of Conley and what he was being primed for. Records state he was trained for ten years. I think this may qualify him as a master printer. National Cyclopedia of American Biography volume 14, part 1, James Terry White, 1910

Conley and the Bible Student Movement coined by CTR

Please discuss all issues regarding Conley and the Bible Student movement in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you would not like the article to suggest that Conley knew Russell at all, which is clearly false. They clearly had some kind of affiliation, because they both started Zion's Watch Tower, and available sources indicate that Russell and others met at Conley's home. (Whether Russell was considered a 'leader' at that point is quite irrelevant.) If you have other sources about Conley, present them. If you have sources that offer other views of Russell's association with Conley, present them. If you have sources indicating a 'conspiracy' or 'propaganda', present them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting my writing and stance on Russell. Because we are in a discussion area I will state to you what I suspect to be true regarding CTR and Conleys relationship. I say this as a non JW and non exJW. I believe the sonless Conley was very close to Russell before ZWTS. I also see evidence of Russell unable to create lasting relationships in Allegheny. Where Conley was personable and had many close friends and associates I see Russell more grasping and widely seeking support after burning his bridges.

The society of Zions Watch Tower was the father of the Bible Student Movement

Conley was not a Bible Student and this CTR movement did not start until after Conley. There is no proof of the existance of a "Pastor Russell" and the "Bible Students" during the Conley prsidency. Zion’s Watch Tower and Tract Society under President Conley would not have formed a so called Bible Student Movement which would later become fractured and full of scandalous changes in leadership. Zion’s Watchtower under Conley is the inclusion of all the modern Bible Student groups before CTR sought his own worldly glory before God. The movement you mention seems to be cursed with break ups from CTR onward. Zion’s Watch Tower and the Jehovah Witnesses have a more noble and graceful and inclusive foundation. These things were just forgotten… I think the Conley article will eventually prove this discussion topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As previously indicated, you seem to have a problem delineating between the early development of the Bible Student movement, and the later initial use of the more formal name 'Bible Students'.

Also as previously indicated, whether Russell was called 'Pastor' during the early development of the movement is also quite irrelevant. The fact remains that the Allegheny Bible study group, regardless of who might have been their 'leader' (if anyone at all), formed the basis for the Bible Student movement, and it was formed before the Society was formed.

It's all well and good what you believe about Conley, and you might even be right, but you need to provide sources rather then simply deciding that you have special knowledge that the rest of recorded history has "just forgotten".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forcing a large cast of characters under the Russell umbrella. Without proof or references I am not buying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tartuffian Edits for Russell

Jeffro - I think it is clear that we all have our own opinion and will make subtle adjustments to the article based off of unproven beliefs. For example we are now edit waring over whether the word "change of leadership" should be included or not. If you remove the text you can propagate your belief that Conley was not really in charge. If I add the text I make it clear that Conley was a president. I saw your recent edit in the Russell article where you undid an authors research regarding Russell’s education level. Apparently you did not want people to know that he left at the 7th grade. 207.76.105.235 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence already states that Russell became president. The only reason to insert extra wording about a change of leadership is either 1) redundant, or 2) to insinuation some additional thing. You have provided no sources for your superfluous insinuation.

Regarding Russell's education level, which is not reelvant to this article, he obviously didn't do something at 16 immediately after dropping out of school at age 12 (the typical age for the 7th grade), so something else was being insinuated by the wording. Your assumptions of what I 'apparently' 'did not want people to know' are irrelevant, but mildly humorous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am seeing a pattern of POV in your edits that is spilling over from the other Jehovah Witness articles. I wish you would not do that here. We are trying to build an article about Conley and not Russell. BradSp (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have only presented what is in the available sources. If there is, as you claim, bias, it is in the sources, but the sources about Russell are both notable and widespread, and the claims they are false are speculative. As previously requested many, many times... if you have additional, or conflicting, reliable sources, please, please, please, provide them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Emma Conley

I thought it would be appropriate to add content regarding Emma Conley, Sarah and Williams daughter. I think she died at around 7 or 8 years old, Ill visit the cemetary to get the dates in a couple weeks.

Something interesting about her death is that she died near the time when the ZWT society formed. This is important to know. It really tells alot about where Conleys head was at that time. If anyone has any information about Emma please place it here. Thx - BACnet (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm it appears Conley provided quite a bit of money when ZWTS formed. This happened right when Emma, his only daughter died. If Conley was a stooge of Russell as many Russelites say what does this say about Russell or the business of preaching the end of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen anecdotal claims that Conley provided most of the funds for setting up the ZWTS, but haven't seen anything verifiable. It would be great if have a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors and staff working for the Society under Conley

I think a list of the editors or administartive staff working for the society under President Conley would be good. I think it should be brief unless there is something we should mention that furthers the understanding of Conley. Content can be placed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

George Peters and WTS

Is there any reason why George N. H. Peters' "Theocratic Kingdom" series is mentioned under the Watch Tower Society section? It doesn't seem related at all. Is there also a reason why Conley's presidency of the unincorporated WTS is not mentioned in the lead section? It is certainly a notable fact about him and quite possibly one of the reasons why a casual visitor might visit this page in search of an answer to the question of who he was. BlackCab (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Theocratic Kingdom is a special case because this was a Conley endeavor but Russell seems to have rejected it. This may be the first sign of disagreement between the President and the Editor. Conley clearly did not publicly rant and attack others for political gain – at least he did not do it with his name attached. I suspect Conley and Russell both had problems with Barbour. I think it would be good if we could cite sources that prove they agreed and disagreed on individual topics. This will help us understand Conley better.

When Conley was President of the “unincorporated” Society it was still a legal entity under PA law. Folks need to move on from the idea that the “unincorporated” society proves Russell as first president. This never worked to persuade anyone and just points out that they and Russell have a complex over the issue. Conely is a good first president for all "Bible Students" more so than Russell. Conley never quit Russell or the Bible Student Movement. Back then Conley got involved with the International Missionary Aliance and Zions Watch Tower. He reached out to people through missionaries, training and the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your 'suspicions' about what 'may' have been a 'sign' of 'disagreement', without any source about a specific disagreement, is speculation and original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro - Stop stutifying conversation by asking for citations in a discussion area. The ideas in the discussion are explored for reliable sources and references and then moved to the article. 207.76.105.235 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You've insinuated things both in discussion, and in the article itself[1], without sources. By all means, discuss; but you need proof for your theories. It is of course entirely appropriate to request sources for contested information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro - I dont see where insinuations were made in the article at the link you provided or anywhere else in the article. I also do not see where you are researching or providing really any material. This is fine because you are a great editor and you are improving the article. The problem is that you twist the article to spin a Russell perspective during yur edits. The current Conley article is more abut Russell than Conley now. BACnet (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you do not recognise that your statement "This may show the earliest schism between the Society President and the Editor and Publisher" is unsourced speculation demonstrates my point quite well.

It would be possible to refer less to Russell specifically if it were not for your refusal to recognize that the Alleghency Bible students were the foundation of the 'Bible Students movement', regardless of whether they were yet formally called by that name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I started an article for Peters and emailed people managing a site about him. H. LaVern Schafer from the Dallas Theological Seminary has a thesis on Peters. If anyone wants to persue this the info is below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nathanial_Henry_Peters http://www.theocratickingdom.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to add some further material, including indications of notability, fairly promptly. It is a strong candidate for deletion as it stands. BlackCab (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackcab - Why do you want to delete this information about Conley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab is clearly referring to your article about Peters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Financial Reports ZWTS under President Conley

Taken from ZWTS - Janaury 1883

Total amount expended up to Jan. 1, 1882.$35,336.18
Amount expended during 1882……….…… 5,945.20
Receipts during 1882……………….........… 3,373.86
--------- Deficiency or amount owing..…...2,571.34
Amount expended for year 1882.……...….... 5,945.20
Total amount expended up to Jan. 1,1883...$41,281.38
As the result of this year's expenditure we have to report the publication of "The Tabernacle" pamphlet........... 15,000 copies
Extra issues of Z.W.T. for use as tracts............... 347,000 copies Leaflets, "The Minister's Daughter" …………… 100,000 copies
------- Total (nearly half a million)..... 462,000 copies

Taken from ZWTS - January 1885

TRACT FUND REPORT. T
his report is for two years, none having been made last January.
Indebtedness January 1, 1883...... $2,571.34
Total expenditure for publicationsduring 1883 and 1884, including those in the Swedish language......................... 2,366.10
---------
$4,937.44
Total cash receipts, voluntary contributions, including those of German and Swedish funds...... 2,491.43
---------
*Balance owing................... $2,446.01

Questions:
The January 1885 Watch Tower announced incorporation and board members and total expenditures. 1881 and 1882 Expenditures were not spoken of duing incorporation.

Why is 81 and 82 ignored. Is their anything significant about thse dates. Did Conley drop out in sometime in 82?

Why would a new corporation formed in 1884 from an unincorporated society not claim or account for 1881 and 1882 but would account for 1883 and 1885. Did Russell not consider the first two years of Conleys presidency 1881-1882 part of the ZWTS. A record describing the society incorporation may explain this mystery. BradSp (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The January 1885 issue has a statement of incorporation, but it doesn't give the expenditure report in connection with that announcement. The January 1882 issue gave a financial report for 1881 (which you haven't included here). The January 1883 issue gave a financial report for 1882 (which you've included above). The January 1884 issue didn't do a financial report, so, as is explicitly stated in the January 1885 issue, it gave a report for the previous two years (which you've included above).

You're speculating, and you're wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And to clarify, it didn't (as you claim) account for "1883 and 1885". The January 1885 issue could hardly provide an account for the future year. It provided an account for 1883 and 1884. The only reason it included a report for 1883 was because they didn't provide that report in the January 1884 issue. If there is any mystery at all, it is 'why didn't they give the 1883 financial report in the January 1884 issue'. But that's all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is why this didnt land immediatly in the article. I changed the Questions to Observations which I hope captures what we are seeing. Assume the best intentions and PLEASE add content by reading whats out there. You are 50% Russell-edits and 50% grammar/spelling edits and 0% content. BradSp (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the text you changed above. You should not substantially change text on Talk pages that another editor has responded to, especially if it affects the context of the response. Use strikethrough if you want to retract your previous irrational speculation.

Also, please note that I am under no obligation to find additional material and am completely justified in improving the article by refactoring existing material. It is you who makes special claims about Conley, so the burden of proof is on you to find sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Conley Military Service

In the History of Washington County, PA page 316 the following is written. The time seems right but this may not be him. It is all I have found on the matter of Conley and the military. Being that Conley was born on June 11th 1840 and his calling to enter the military was in June 25th 1861 it appears he would be required to report for active duty exactly two weeks after his 21st birthday.

Is this proof enough? The odds of having the same name and birthday in PA seem near impossible. Let me know what you think about the reliabilty of this source.

Typed as written in the book. "William Conley must, must, in June 25, 1861; must out with company May 24th, 1864"

Reference: History of Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men / edited by Boyd Crumrine. Illustrated. Philadelphia: L.H. Everts and Co., 1882. Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916

Could be him, but might not be. Two people around the same age having the same name is not common but not unheard of. Does the source actually give a birth date?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No Birthday. I imagine it could be proven that 21 year olds were required to report two weeks after their birthday. Nevertheless another bit of information seems to be needed before this can go into the article. BACnet (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

CMA in Pennsylvania

[Moved from comments made in article by Brad] - The comment is equivalent to the that made about the ZWTS. Conley had nothing to do with the Jehovah Witnesses but incidentally the organization in which he was the first president became the Jehovah Witnesses. In regards to the CMA, Conley was the president at the state level. His early work built a CMA foundation which appears to sustain that church. I find it very interesting that the largest CMA population is actually in PA and not New York or Colorado which is where Simpson was based and where the later church organization took root. A massive alliance church is a short walk from Conley’s house you know. :) This is all very very interesting even if it is incidental.-- (Brad)

It's not really the same thing. It would be similar to the JW reference to state whether the CMA became some other group, or ceased to exist (these are hypothetical scenarios), or whatever. Unless it can be established that Pennsylvania has the most members because of Conley, then saying that a paricular area happens to have the most members isn't terribly relevant, and would be like saying in this article that most JWs are in the US (or any other number of irrelevant things).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a double standard. BradSp (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a double standard at all. It was an incidental factoid, with no source to indicate any correlation beyond coincidence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is significant that the state in which Conley was president continued on to have the most members. Conleys efforts in PA were the direct result of the founding membership base. A reference showing that PA has the most or the least or any number of memebrs is relavant to understanding the eventual result of his labors. I think you are displaying a clear double on this one.

BradSp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

It may be significant, but the current number of CMA members in a particular place can only be established as relevant to Conley if you can provide a source indicating that the majority being there now is specifically as a result of Conley's actions. A lot of tourists visit the city I live in. Should I add to the article about where I live that tourists come here because I'm here? Or could that just be coincidence?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were the (life long) first president of the organization that developed the tourism industry in your city I would state notable facts about the current industry. Founders and presidents are notable because they build foundations. Lets speak Russell talk. Should Russell have mention in a Jehovahs Witness article?

BradSp (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the article about the CMA, so your analogy doesn't fit. Aside from that, of course the JW article should mention Russell in its History section, because although the JWs postdate Russell, he was an important figure in the development of the group as a branch of the Bible Student movement. This has no relevance to whether current CMA membership statistics for Pennsylvania are pertinent to an article about Conley.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Zions Watch Tower a church in 1881 - 1884?

I added the fact that ZWTS was non denominational at the time of Conleys involvement. The editor should establish, through reliable sources, that ZWTS was part of an established church.

Certain Wikipedia Jehovah Witness writers are fraudulently associating historic Pittsburgh residents as part of a "Charles Taz Russell specific church cult." This needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have previously and repeatedly been asked to present sources supporting your views. The available sources consistently indicate that the Watch Tower Society from the outset was associated with the publication of Russell's Zion's Watch Tower, and that it was specifically set up for that purpose. In the absence of any sources to the contrary, the article will reflect what is presented in existing sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro - prove the church existed in 1881 - 1884 before associating people with the CTR cult. It is your burden to prove the existance of a church before associating historic Pittsburgh figures. Bradsp (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Zion's Watch Tower Society was established as a printing business, and it was used for publishing Russell's writings, including Zion's Watch Tower and other materials. It was not a 'church' at all. Zion's Watch Tower Society is not synonymous with Bible Students. It is not necessary to prove the existence of any particular church in this case, and no such assertion has been made in the wording you keep changing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Census 1879

The article says:

Adventist minister George Stetson lived for a time with the Conleys during a prolonged period of illness until his death. source: Allegheny City census results of 1879 published in 1880

Those census results are online here: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MW6H-B88

George Stetson is not mentioned. So this is not a source for the statement that George Stetson stayed at their home during his illness. Moreover, Stetson died in his own home in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, according to his obituary in The World's Crisis, 5 november 1879.

—Mendelo (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Whether Stetson was there for some other period would need to be supported by a different source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Years under 'President of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society'

Why has an unregistered person (from merely an IP address) been DROPPING (or abbreviating) information and abbreviating that information from actual calendar dates, to years only? cf.President of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 1884–1916 MaynardClark (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)