Talk:Joseph W. Tkach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes made April 2006

I've made a few changes, trying to remove POV.

• We should provide a source for the bit about what Tkach said at Armstrong's funeral.
• I took out the astonishing bit that equated Evangelicals with liberal Protestants.
• An encyclopedia should not say that some doctrine or practice "is Biblical", only that it "is considered Biblical by (name of person or group)" or something similar. I changed "Biblical doctrines" to "unconventional doctrines". (An earlier version of the article had "unique doctrines".)

Please WP:BOLDly improve on my work. I'd especially appreciate a better word than "unconventional".
—Chris Chittleborough 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

New submission

I took the original stub and created a whole article. There is very little info available on this person and I hope new editions will add to it.

I should note that there are a lot of what I suspect are WCG splinter group members who try to damage material. Hence one sees their results: the bizarre equivalence of evangelical Christianity with "liberals".

RelHistBuff 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The new version seems excellent to me ... but then I had never heard of Joseph Tkach until I stumbled across the article a few weeks ago and noticed some things that need fixing. I see no need for any further edits. Nice writing, too. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, correction noted. Not all Evangelicals are Liberal Protestants.

I just received the DVD of Herbert Armstrong's funeral complete with Tkach's pretended intention to "walk in his footsteps". Will provide documentation soon.--Afsscorp 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This article is difficult as Tkach had a quite controversial tenure as leader of the WCG. In past versions, people just thrashed him and did not make anything encyclopedic. I think it is possible to include criticisms of him (for example, if he made hypocritical statements) and stay NPOV. On the other hand, there should be no gloating from the mainstream side as well. RelHistBuff 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to anonymous editor, 65.25.61.94, who corrected some and added new material. I recommend that you get a wiki account and join in! I have taken the liberty to make some minor changes to the changes. I just noted that only some in the mainstream community have hailed Tkach’s changes because I have seen some mainstream websites that are still quite critical of the WCG and its current leader Joseph Tkach, Jr.. Also, I think that there is a place to mention that celebrating Christmas, Easter, and other traditional holidays was allowed, but I wanted to check the timeline first. RelHistBuff 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources and it seems that several doctrinal and infrastructure-related events occurred when Joseph Tkach, Jr. took office. These include the Christmas/Easter celebration being permitted, the closing of Ambassador University, and the spinoff of The Plain Truth. These occurred around 1996 shortly after Tkach, Sr. died. However, the events are probably linked to his tenure so some mention of these events should stay in this article. But the bulk of the description of the events should be in the article on Tkach, Jr.. I may try writing a new article on Tkach, Jr. someday, but in the meantime, I leave things as they are. Others are welcome to give it a try first. RelHistBuff 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I believe this satisfies GA criteria. The amount of source material is small, but as I mentioned above, unfortunately there is not much good material. It's surprising for a notable and controversial character (see history where previously there were lots of POV-ridden versions). I can provide detailed inline citations which I prefer to do anyway, but seeing this is a short article, I left it as it is for the moment. RelHistBuff 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination in order to obtain a peer review first. RelHistBuff 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

After input from the Biography peer review, I am nominating it again. RelHistBuff 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography project

To get input, I am asking for a peer review from members of the Biography project. RelHistBuff 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian origin?

"Tkach" does not necessairly have to be a name of Russian origin. Spelled Tkacz it is a Polish word for "weaver" and it is a moderately popular Polish surname. For what I know, the Russian word for "weaver" has the same pronunciation (spelled ткач), so it might also be a Russian name, but such assertion require a good reference IMHO (being Russian Orthodox is not a clear indication given the history of Poland and Russia). What I wanted to point out is the absolute lack of references in the first four paragraphs of the "background" section. There also several other paragraphs that go unreferenced. I believe this should all be rectified before it would be considered for GA. Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can supply the references for the Russian origin claim as well as references for all other portions (I have not supplied anything that was not from the references). Tell me what you feel needs a citation and I will put it in.RelHistBuff 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In general I believe that there should be a reference for every paragraph, perhaps save for the summary, which usually consists of information that can be found elsewhere in the article. In case there is more than one source for a given paragraph, try to place the references by the sentences/parts of sentences they are taken from, unless it would become rather unpractical - e.g. when the information from both sources are interspersed throughout the text, just leave two references at the end, in case a specific piece of information is from another source, place the "general" reference at the end of the paragraph and the "specific" one by the piece of information it pertains to. But did I say anything you did not know before? Bravada, talk - 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. While we are at it, I think it does not look too good when a section consists of paragraphs that are just one to three lines. I would try to recompose the text so that the paragraph are between five to eight lines - perhaps it is not as important as referencing, but makes the article look much more "complete" and read better.

OK thanks. I'll work on this over the next couple of days. RelHistBuff 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting result concerning the Russian origin claim. The first source (Report issue 41) did mention the Russian connection (Tkach himself supposedly claimed he was of Russian descent). However, the second source (Report issue 44) gave more details about his heritage (Carpatho-Russians or Rusyns) and the grouping may or may not be distinct from Russians/Ukrainians. However, it seems he did grow up in the Russian Orthodox faith (Tkach, Jr. source). RelHistBuff 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for pointing this out. The history of Slavic origins is quite fascinating. I guess most Americans (as Tkach himself did) tend to lump various groupings together, while the distinctions are rather important for most non-Americans. RelHistBuff 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Scary, ain't it? I find it really fascinating that people in Poletown eat pączki on Tuesday! Bravada, talk - 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. The citations look OK now bar a few sentences - are there any problems with them? I guess I can't give you a full GA review, though I'd love to, as I don't know nothing about the subject, so I can't say whether the article is complete and the subject dealt with appropriately :(

GA Passed

Congratulations! The article passed. It is nicely written and suprisingly neutral considering the controversial nature of the subject. Moving toward the future, I'd suggest that the article use fewer passives. You may want to take the article to peer review next. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and quality sources

I have moved the post that was originally in another subsection to this subsection at the bottom in order to bring this into chronological order as in standard practise. I have copied and pasted the post below. RelHistBuff 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many biography aspects are clear and uncontroversial. There is still a very strong emphasis in several areas on only the controversial issues. The fact that the biography focuses on 90% on the last 10 years of this man's life is not surprising given the significance of those last 10 years. However, more empasis could be put on the formative years. In addition, once source (The Ambassador Report) is used for 70-100% of the citations in this and related articles. While The Ambassador Report cannot be entirely excluded as a source (and, arguably, it has provided a useful role in documenting certain factual data such as dates, personalities involved etc.) it is a heavily biased 'publication' (in the UK, it would be called a scandal sheet). There are many issues (including the receivership of the WCG) which are very well documented in the conventional media and I think we (myself included) can work a little harder to use those other sources to produce a well-rounded piece (both in terms of the various periods of this man's life and the various points of view as to his achievements/controversies). In my view, this biography is a long way from that point (not that more volume needs to be written). I note that there are several sincere contributors working on reaching that point. == Anon == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.103 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2006

In response, additional input would be welcome especially in regards to Tkach's role during the receivership years. If you have the sources, please cite them. As for the use of Ambassador Report, please note that I used them only as sources for getting factual data and I was very careful not to include the biased commentary. And although AR is biased against the WCG, note that I also used several sources that are biased for the new WCG. The important point is that the article remains neutral, but the sources where the information is from must be cited as per Wikipedia citation policy. In discussing on these talk pages, please sign your post as per Wikipedia guideline. It makes it easier to keep track of the discussion. RelHistBuff 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'll read the Wiki protocol). Your comments on your use of the Ambassador Report are well taken. However, much of the data is available from pro or neutral sources. A quick google yields some interesting things. Using a scandal sheet as a source, however, seriously undermines the well intentioned work done to date. If I wanted to write a critique of George Bush, I would produce a highly more credible article if I quoted from US News than if I quoted from the National Enquirer (if you take my point). Clearly this entry and related entries cannot be owned by any one individual. Let's work together to produce some quality sources. Quoting from a highly biased publication to satisfy source criteria (no matter how carefully selected) is not ideal research practice. [[User:]] 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is another more neutral source that supports a statement, then that would be a helpful addition. I would contest, however, your comparison of AR to the National Enquirer. The bias of AR is clear, but there are plenty of examples of polemical literature that can be cited as being reliable. They just have to be treated with plenty of caution. Rather than doing a blanket deletion of the AR citations, could you point out what is the problem with a specific AR citation and we can work from there? RelHistBuff 14:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ignorant on the quality of the AR, but if it is used to source non-controversial data then it can be used. However, if the data can be sourced from other, more neutral, sources, then please feel free to do so. Standard practice is to bring issues of citation problems to the Talk page and work through them, rather than delete the citations. The only time WP:3RR does not apply is if the information is in violation of WP:BLP (negative and unsourced material in a biography of a living person). This doesn't appear to apply here, and it looks like the sources were removed in most cases, rather than the information. If there is any information which you believe to not be true, you may remove it and paste it here and ask for a citation. Information that you know is true but just isn't attributed yet, or poorly attributed, (unless it violates BLP) is generally not removed but rather hashed through on the Talk page. It seems like both parties above are keeping cool and are willing to work together on the Talk page and am assuming the anonymous user was not aware of WP:3RR. You both have raised good points and am confident you can work together to resolve this :-) --plange 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you can see from my comments that I am attempting to be neutral and/or engage in debate(and forgive me but discovering the Wiki protocol as I go). The removal of AR as a source was for good reason and, you will note, was not 100%. The AR (a simple newsletter) exists only as a critic of the WCG and its personalities (and has now expanded this to its offspring groups). The AR goes beyond polemical literature and a review of articles particularly during the 70s and 80s reveals its bias not only in the topics chosen, but also in the wording used (journalistic slant would be a gracious description). I would return the sporting challenge to YOU to find more appropriate sources. Using the AR is not ideal. Using the AR in large quantity is even less ideal. I don't think the Wiki protocol envisions selective copying from one source (not my intention to be sarcastic here). I will, however, take your suggestion and also produce some other sources. Obviously autobiographical and biographical commentary from sources close to the subject, tempered or countered with contrary views are academically more correct than working in the other direction (e.g., he claimed to have....although others held the view that...). User:213... 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted the citations and I would submit that AR is not used in large quantities. There are 51 citations (several are multiple citations of the same source). If one counts only the Trechak articles as possibly biased sources, there are only 15. There are 6 additional AR citations that are quotes of other publications (such as Worldwide News). So the impact of AR is not that great. But I would be glad to see other sources (such as WN). By the way, I should point out that that the other sources used in the citations (the WCG sources, Tkach Jr.'s and Feazell's books, Tucker's article, the NAE press release, PCoG and UCoG documents) are, in my opinion, equally if not more biased than Trechak's AR articles (just biased in other directions). What counts is the careful use of those sources (picking only factual data) despite their biases. RelHistBuff 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. However, if you have written the bulk of this bio and have no prior knowledge of the history, I will admit you have done a good job. I do think that Feazell's and Tkach Jr's accounts used as primary source and cross-checked against other sources are the best starting point. They are essentially the "scribes" preserving the history of an institution and of a previous leader with whom they agreed. Then, obviously, the views from outside merit other sources. I have made some edits, being careful not to upset any direct quotes. There are large bodies of information (e.g., Christmas Sermon) where the words of the speaker himself are available. Also, it is possible that someone has access to LA Times archives, for example, regarding receivership period. One of the reasons HWA felt Tkach was a worthy successor is because he saw him as a defender of the Church. PCoG (certainly) and UCoG (more tempered in its literature) are, without doubt, biased sources by definition. One thing I would like to see is a little more about the man himself. Clearly his last 10 years were important, but this bio is still currently more about WCG than about Joe Tkach (not to devalue to the excellent contribution you have made so far). User:213... 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to know more about Tkach and unfortunately there are not many sources of info. Wikipedia had only a tiny stub. So I took whatever sources I could find and wrote the whole article myself. I agree that Feazell and Tkach Jr. are probably the best sources as they are the only ones that contain "insider" information. However, there is a conflict of interest as they are currently leading the WCG. Reading Tkach Jr. book, I get the impression that the description of Tkach Sr. is close to hagiographic, perhaps not surprisingly. A book by a neutral biographer-historian would be the best source in my opinion. In the absence of such research work, I took all sources, pro- and con- Tkach. Concerning your edits, many thanks, they definitely improved the article. Tkach Jr.'s book does provide some details of Tkach Sr.'s role in defending the WCG during the receivership period so I will add some text on that. Concerning the coverage of the article, I think we are limited by the sources we have which mainly covers his tenure leading the WCG. Trechak does provide additional details of his early years, but it is difficult to separate commentary/hearsay from fact. So I chose not to include those details for the moment. RelHistBuff 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! User:213... 11:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From Jebbrady to Realhistbuff

I am aware of a book that has just come out called Raising the Ruins by Stephen Flurry. It purports to document in detail the transformation of the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach, basing its narrative solely on court documents--depositions, WCG internal memos and emails, testimonies, etc.. and all other documents gathered through discovery during the court trial between the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach Jr. and the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG). It is extensively footnoted.

Apparently the lawyers for the Worldwide under Tkach Jr. tried to keep these documents from being made public. They did this by intially offering to sell to the PCG the copyrights of Armstrong's books and booklets only on the condition that the PCG surrender these documents. Amazingly, Gerald Flurry, the head of the PCG, immediately informed them that that demand was a deal breaker, and to prepare for further litigation, even though Tkach and the WCG had already won their appeal on the Mystery of the Ages case with the subsequent PCG request to be heard by the Supreme Court being initially denied. Even more amazing, within hours the WCG relented and sold the copyrights anyway.

Are you aware of this book and what implication does this body of tremendous, fabulous source material have for this article?

I'm kind of surprised that this is not being discussed at all on this page. It should be discussed out in the open, and if it isn't, something is wrong.

69.115.161.123Jebbrady

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.161.123 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 December 2006

Must Provide Legitimate Citation or Delete

Gentlemen, you have an unequivocal, extremely broad statement that Herbert W. Armstrong was receiving regular "medical treatments" without citation or specifics (He had ruled that certain types of non-medicinal care like setting of broken bones was not the same as seeking medical treatment).

You also make a similarly unequivocal statement that Armstrong, on his deathbed, said the healing doctrine needed revision. Some might say this statement, especially appearing in an encyclopedia, "fails to pass the laugh test". In any case, this assertion was not cited, but presumably came from Tkach's book, Transformed by Truth. See the court case documents listed in Raising the Ruins in order to assess his credibility as a source for an encyclopedia article. Even without that, simple common sense dictates that such a statement is totally unfit for an encyclopedia article.

Be advised that the medical treatment statement will remain deleted until it is brought into NPOV in the manner I alluded to. The "deathbed doctrinal change" statement, which came from a self serving, unproveable myth concocted and espoused by the WCG leadership to justify doctrnal changes, will remain deleted. 67.80.157.45 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady