Talk:William Henry Conley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Death

The (now removed) 'death' section did not contain any information about Conley's death other than longwinded obituaries. Long quotes without any introduction or encyclopaedic commentary do not belong in articles. Any notable information should be summarised in normal prose, citing the original source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC) The only particularly notable parts of the obituaries seems to be the date and time of his death, and reference to a period of illness leading up to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Very little is known about Conley. The obituary provides valuable information about who this person was. Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.82 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT post the entire obituary. Extract the important bits and phrase as properly formatted prose. (e.g. his friends saying he's a nice guy are NOT encyclopedically important)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

W I Mann states, "He expected to be a member of the cabinet (as he so often expressed it) of the King of Kings, in the rule of the nations in power and blessing. "

Being this was often expressed by Conley, does anyone know where Conley read this passage or where this idea comes from. This may be an important part of his character. Thanks, Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Obituary should be included by in smaller text. The categories provide the most relevant parts of Conley. Jeffro - the old information you have is very primitive and is a disservice to Conley adn frames him in an incorrect way and frankly random. Your formatting is fine but your insistence on that kind of content is way off base. The historic opinion of his friends and foes will be taken apart and prevail in this article. The Obit of leading Adventists and the context in which they wrote it absolutely can not be missed by anyone reading about Conley. Brad

Then by all means, fix the content. But please don't be lazy and just paste badly formatted and superfluous details. Also note the other version I reverted had duplicated information in the first few paragraphs with badly formatted headings. Feel free to add any new information with suitable references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the full text of the obituaries does not need to be included. Much of the detail is simply personal opinions about him, and is not encyclopedic content. Information such as details about how and when he died are suitable, and those details should cite the obituaries as a source. What his friends might have personally thought about him, or subjective POV opinions about whether he was a 'good' person are not encyclopedically notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the properly formatted version and removed the unnecessary information from longwinded POV obituaries. Longwinded quotes—especially atrocially formatted ones—that have no useful information should not be included in articles. Please review the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding headings, sections, and the whole thing in general. Rather than restoring the previous poor version (complete with spelling errors, improperly formatted references, incorrect heading levels, duplicated details and poor structure), please work any additional information into the current format. DO NOT ADD THE FULL UNFORMATTED TEXT OF THE OBITUARIES.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, what do you think about adding quotes from various leading church leaders about W. H. Conley? I am looking for a place to expand on the character of Conley according to what is on record. Thanks, Brad

If they are brief quotes that contain information, then yes. If they are subjective glowing appraisals constituting nothing other than personal opinion, then no. A hypothetical example of something informational might be "Conley opened his home for months at a time to visiting missionaries." A hypothetical example of something subjective and unencylcopedic might be "Conley loved God and God blessed his efforts in his ministry. Conley was more dedicated to Bible study than any other person." Also, there is no good reason to include very long quotes; it is better to extract the particularly important information and present that information as encyclopedic prose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Quotations, in particular, WP:Quotations#When not to use quotations before proceeding to insert quotations into the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Article content

Though the presentation is different (i.e. better), the version I have restored in fact has the same actual information (rather than 'primitive', as you claim) as the version you ('Brad') keep restoring, minus the full-text obituaries, which are largely non-notable opinions of his friends. If you have more up-to-date information, add it, with references. In particular, note that "The Obit of leading Adventists and the context in which they wrote it absolutely can not be missed by anyone reading about Conley" is a personal opinion. Please keep in mind that this article is not a fansite for promoting a particular (e.g. Adventist) view of the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro - You rearranged the information so as to focus on Conley’s business interests and reconceptualized William Conley. I doubt your neutrality on this issue. There are specific reasons why one would remove and rename content in order to create a particular perspective. If you are a Jehovah witness or an ex Jehovah Witness you had best let others write this articles content and let others deal with form. If you are neutral, I apologize for suggesting this however you really should be focusing on supporting the content writers and making more careful changes to form. You obviously have a lot to add but you need too work with me and not call names from the start. Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not called anyone 'names' at all. The fact remains that the version you keep restoring lacks structure and is full of problems. As a different approach, I will try correcting each type of problem as a separate edit - I am really being very patient with you here. If you continue reverting to the bad version without even attempting to fix the structure or content, I'll report it for mediation instead. Please read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about article structure and presentation!--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care in which order the business interests are listed, so long as the article has some logical structure. It remains unclear why you won't make edits to the improved version instead of reverting to a version that is full of formatting, spelling, stylistic, and other errors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now... I have expended considerable effort on fixing this. If you need to add information (not longwinded quotes from obituary notices), do so. Also, if you want to remove information (such as if you believe there is undue weight, do so. But please keep the current structure. DON'T just blindly revert to the old version. If you have specific issues, please discuss them specifically here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You question my neutrality (futile, because doing so only brings your own neutrality into question) in fixing the logical order of the article by moving information about Bible Students, a missionary group (and clearly not "Miscellaneous Facts"), into the Missionary work section. If you believe this is not the logical place for such information to go, please explain why, clearly, here. If you believe there is undue weight to the Bible Students, then discuss that here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote

I thought about removing the following quote from near the beginning of the article (hence a recent edit summary mentioning the inadvertently untaken action): J. H. Paton stated of the Conley home, "I have shared the generous hospitality of that Christian home. Often has the spacious parlor been opened for the purposes of praise and prayer, and for the proclamation of the good tidings. It has been to many a Bethel–the house of God and the gate of heaven.". I might still remove this statement if it cannot be indicated that J H Paton or his statement are in some way particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This proves Conley provided a home mission and was more than a business man. I have seen Conley haters’ dehumaize this man. I have heard many Jehova Witnesses try to make Conley into a business man in order to further Charles Russell’s role as a spiritual founder. The fact is that Conley provided a spiritual foundation for the JW, the CMA and through his home mission. Conley was more than a business man.

Don’t you even think about removing this quote Jeffro. I am onto what you are trying to remove and why you are removing it. I have record of your activities and all other Jehovah Witness PR activities around Conley. I will make an issue of this.

I am a neutral writer on Wiki so step back and just let the truth come out. I am not and I have never been JW. I demand respect of all churches involved and I will not tolerate pro or con JW to muddle Conley’s name. Like I said sit back and lets build the truth of this man.

As a compromise I will not add back the obit. The only reason I added it was because of a clearly dehumanizing PR effort of this spiritual man and his wife. Brad

I have no interest in your baseless assumptions. You should be thanking me for attempting to improve the article, but instead you just impute bad motives. Grow up. I will post an RFC for a third party opinion if you continue to question my motives or make other snide comments. For one thing, I added reference to Conley's missionary activities, and you removed it. And then, you accuse me of trying to make him sound like just a business man. You removed the section about the Bible Students. I have no idea what you're on about either in regard to your accusations of me, or whatever other real or imagined 'dehumanizing efforts' that might have happened at some point. Nor do I care to know.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro - It just does not make sense why you would harass contributors and call them names. I dont understand your motives for doing this. The Bible Students si a catgory under Zions Watch Tower. Either you do not understand this and you are editing material you can noto comprehend or you are purposely misleading the article for religious reasons.

Whatever your motives you are creating chaos and sabotaging this article.

I have no idea what you referring to when you talk about either harassing contributors or 'call them names' (and I don't really care). If you continue to make either of the personal attacks (that either 'I can't comprehend' or I have certain 'religious motives'), you will be reported. The Bible Student movement started before the formation of Zion's Watch Tower, so it logically cannot be a 'category' under it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As the record shows in Wikipedia you started calling me names for no reason at the beginning of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... I did refer to you as 'Brad' once. Is that offensive? Otherwise you'll have to indicate what you're referring to.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Brad wrote- You did it on "10:19, 9 December 2009" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk)

Assuming there's a time difference here, but the only edit on or near that date with a timestamp ending in :19 was an edit summary that said to anyone reading to stop being lazy by lazily reverting to a poorly formatted version. That is an instruction, though one that shouldn't need to be made, but it seemed required because the errant behaviour had been repeated. Are you calling that name-calling?? That's certainly a stretch, and no one forced you to go ahead and revert to that selfsame poorly formatted version after that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bible Students/WT

There is a very specific reason that Bible Students is a second-level heading and Watch Tower is a third-level heading. It is not a doubling of categories; ZWTTS is a subheading of the 'Bible Students' section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
A much older Conley and his wife were not Bible students of a young Charles Taz Russell or Pastor Russell or whoever you want to call him. The idea that Mr. Conley would call young Charles "Pastor Russell" is absolutely ridiculous. Conley did not help create a Russell Bible Student movement. If you want to load ZWT withmore Jehova Witness info then create a misc section at the end of this article. It has no relevance in Conley’s ZWTS

Whatever. I grow tired of your baseless assumptions of my opinions/motives, as well as your accusations of name calling. Please stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found that the indirect source of the statements of Conley being one of the original Bible Students (for which I previously requested a source) were from an article from a website called 'freeminds', which itself does not provide any sources for its claims. I therefore am happy not to add back the statements about Conley being one of the original BS group unless/until an original source is provided (though his financial backing of Russell coupled with their common association with Storrs, Stetson, Paton etc, do indicate that he did have some kind of theological connections with it).

(See other comments below about the 'Pastor' strawman argument.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Paton

Well, yes, I see from Google that Paton was a Bible Student, an associate of Russell, and an early Watch Tower contributor. But why do these things make his particular comment so notable so as to include the full mundane quote rather than simply state that Conley frequently held meetings and provide the ref?--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The section is about his home mission. Paton nailed in his quote. I think the way you want to mention his home mission reduces the importance of his home mission to the founding of other religious organizations and to individuals.

Brad wrote - You appear to be categorizing people according to a Jehovas Witness or CTR association. I dont think an insistance on Adventism categors or Bible Student categories helps explain Conley. Conley assocaited himself with ZWTS, CMA, Conley Riter Company, his home mission as well as various boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not added any categorization to the article. I am only working with existing information already in the article. As I have said before, feel free to add other sourced information about any other groups he worked with. (Riter Company info also still needs source.) Conley died long before the JWs existed, so not sure how he would have any direct JW association. If you have other information about his 'home mission', then add that too. But the quote in question doesn't really supply any information other than what is already stated - just a longer way of saying it, with a bit of religious fervor thrown in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Paton regarding Conley and Burbour or anyone else are critical to understanding these people. Patons decision to mention Conleys house as a gate to Heaven or Bethel makes it clear to the reader how the Conley home at 50 Fremont was being used. The home mission of Conley was the foundation and location of many things that would later happen. JW describe their home bulding as Bethel now-a-days. The article is rendered stale without quotes and much of the meaning is being behind the article is being lost. Brad

Incorrect. Such unelaborated POV theological opinions (such as the house being a 'Gate to Heaven', which is not indicated by the quote to be a term Conley coined) add no encyclopedic value whatsoever. It seems you are trying to draw some parallel between that house being referred to as Bethel (by Paton) having some relevance to JWs' later use of the term, though if the article doesn't explain that there is actually any connection, there is no value in retaining the quote. On the one hand you insist that later JW (and probably other groups') developments had a basis in Conley-related ideas (though how Paton's words definitely identify Conley's opinions is unclear anyway) and you insist that Conley was more than just a businessman, and on the other, you try to expunge any theological connection of Conley with Russell, insisting that his connections with ZWTTS were purely business and that he had nothing to do with the early Bible study group, based, apparently, on your own personal opinion. Additionally, your earlier strawman argument about whether Conley would call Russell Pastor (a label you brought up, and then imagined I might favour based on your own apparent biased speculation) is irrelevant, as there is no reason to assume that anyone at the original early study group used any honorific titles or held any individual as higher than the other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If the use of Conley's home was "the foundation and location of many things that would later happen" then you should state what those foundations were, and supply references. You can't just slap in a quote (especially a quote from someone else entirely) with no further explanation, and just expect readers to know 1) why that quote is important or 2) what conclusions you imagine they're supposed to draw from it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: Paton's opinions about how Conley's house was used tell the reader nothing at all about Conley's intentions, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, motivations, or any other thing. If you want to start an article about Paton, then it might be relevant there to highlight his use of expressions such as 'heaven's gate' or 'bethel'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds better. Ask me to do this and I will do it. There is no need to revert work. The quote is basis for many references and explanations. let this thing grow. The framework is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.82 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I will leave the redundant quote in place, for now. However, please supply further information, particularly as to why Paton's specific wording is relevant to Conley's activities. And please do watch for intermediate edits instead of just blindly reverting.

It does seem a little odd that two users with different IPs who both edit primarily this article only would both call themselves Brad. Especially when the second IP accused me of 'name-calling' after I requested that the first IP user to not be lazy. If you are the same person who uses two different Internet connections, you may like to consider creating an account. See also WP:MEAT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial of ties to Russell

Not satisfied with merely removing connections of Conley to Russell, though such seems clear from their many associates in common, an anonymous editor (either two individuals both calling themselves 'Brad' when signing edits, or one individual operating two separate Internet accounts), is now intent on claiming that Russell, publisher of Zion's Watch Tower since 1879, was not at all associated with Zion's Watch Tower Society. It is unclear why this editor wants to remove any connection of Conley to Russell. Any opinions that Conley was especially good or that Russell was especially bad (or vice versa) are of course irrelevant, so what is the reason?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I write from work and from home. There is no conspiracy. Stop the name calling and accusations. Brad

Again you are jumping to conclusions and too quick tp make accusations. Russell and Conley were like two peas in a pod. I suspect Conley knew Russell when he was a child and may have taught him the printing business. There is a lot of information to mine here abou there early relationship. The Bible student movement as some like to attribute to CTR was not a movement that Paton, Conley, Bourbour and anyone else associated with CTR joined. CTR was not a leader of these people in fact he was a young ambitious upstart who go on to do great things. In writing this bio we should stay true to the person and not be swayed by the post mortem of CTR. The so called Bible student movement has no meaning in 1879 when ZWT-HCP was published or in 1881 when the society formed.

This discussion and the history comments is filled with rancour. I just started writing on Wikipedia and I am excited about sharing my knowledge and learing the software but my experience has been ruined by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.82 (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite your assertion that Conley might have known Russell merely when he was a child, they clearly knew each other well enough to both be involved in Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, which published Russell's magazine Zion's Watch Tower, when Russell was in his late 20s onwards. Whether or not Conley was part of the 'Bible Students' (which is somewhat irrelevant), he obviously had some ties to them, in particular, the starkly evident connection with the publication of its flagship journal. Nevertheless, far from trying to make the article mainly about Russell, I have repeatedly invited you to add referenced material about any other of Conley's ventures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been no name calling at all, and what seems to you like an accusation is simply the stating of two possibilities, and I have previously advised you that creating an account would resolve any ambiguity of editing from two locations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jehova Witness history is more Russell centric so when reading about the history please bear this in mind. None of the below people are considered Bible Students even though they knew or worked with Russell. Conley in fact did not deal with C. T. Russell but he dealt with his dad (of the same first name) in an executuve and decision making role. Russells dad was Vice President and Conley was President. A very young CT Russell was treasurer and CT Russell was an editor and very small time publisher at the time. There was no bible student movement with Russell leading the way for these people. All that came later.

Jonas Wendell George Storrs George Stetson Nelson Barbour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.82 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bible Student movement was undoubtedly still in its formative phase at the time, but that doesn't preclude Conley from involvement in its early (and probably informal) development. Your references to Russell as "a child" and "very young" do seem to try to distance Conley from Russell more than may have been the case, though there were actually only 12 years' difference in their ages and Russell was around 30 at the time in question, hardly "a child". However, you have provided some clarity, and in the absence of other reliable sources, I'll leave things as is for now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)