Talk:Joseph W. Tkach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured articleJoseph W. Tkach is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 23, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 2, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewReviewed
November 28, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
March 16, 2014Today's featured articleMain Page
December 30, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Pronunciation

Can someone please add the phonetic pronunciation of Tkach's name? I doubt that an uninformed reader (like myself) would be able to pronounce his name from the spelling alone! Wikipeterproject 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the phonetic conventions but here goes... tuh-kotch or t'kotch was how it was always said when I attended WCG. I knoow i should register as a user, or at least use tildas at the end of my message but I can't find them on the keyboard...therefore (MESSAGE ENDS)

Should it really be an /ɒ/? Now most American accents merge /ɒ/ and /ɑ(ː)/, but which would be the proper pronunciation in an accent without this merger?
1700-talet (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Is the Heading "Tkach's Reforms" Religious Discrimination?

The heading "Tkach's Reforms" is not NPOV, and at the very least puts forth the strong appearance of religious discrimination, especially when the word, "changes" is available and is obviously far more neutral. And Of course, some people wouldn't characterize the changes as "reforms" at all. More importantly for the reputation of Wikipedia is the avoidance of the appearance of religion bashing or religious bigotry. This heading will not return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2007

The use of "reform" or "reformation" is NPOV. In the context of organisational change, the implementation of new strategy or direction and certainly in changes in doctrine and direction of a religious movement, "reform" is the common language. The Wiktionary definition of reformation includes an intended improvement. I don't know anything at all about Tkach's changes, but I am guessing that they were at least intended as improvements. I think reform can stay in the heading. Wikipeterproject 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by pointing out that the common usage of "reform" to describe change within a religious organization has always been a flawed term, and the pointing out of the common banality of a flawed device is no argument for it's retention.

That the term "reform" means that it simply was "intended" and that therefore justifies using the term, must mean that it wouldn't be an outrage in your estimation to say that the inquisition was an attempt to "reform" the relgious landscape of Europe (after all that was the intention from the Popes' perspective), or that the Nazis were reforming the ethnic make-up of Europe via the Holocaust.

Second, to bring up the common usage of "reform" in describing changes in doctrine or direction of a religious movement or organizational as a justification for the terms usage in this article is specious: We are talking about a contemporary, sensitive religious issue (especially in this case) not changes relagated to the distant, misty ruins of time and place, where the "reforms" made have since reached virtual universal agreement as to their necessity or quality; rather, we are talking about a recent event with people on all sides still living, and changes involving what some believe was the tyranical "betrayal" of a cherished set of religious beliefs.

Overall, whether or not "reform" is common usage in organizational change or in religion is immaterial as far as upholding the credibility of Wikipedia is concerned.

To say that "reforms" is an appropriate description because the changes to those beliefs could be "intended improvements", as you say, is nevertheless insulting to many, and, more importantly, smacks of religious bigotry on any level you care to debate. Perhaps most importantly, it is totally unnessary, when one considers the NPOV perfection of "Doctrinal Changes Under Tkach". If you think the latter heading is so unpalatable, it begins to appear that you personanlly think the changes were "reforms".

The stakes are higher for Wkipedia's credibility, especially in light of the fact that some of the editiors of this article have been involved in edits elswhere that have taken on a strong appearance of religious bigotry.

If you have a problem with that and wish to obstruct the replacement of "reforms" with "changes", I'll be happy to explain to the proper staff members at Wikipedia the problems with the appearance of flagrant religious bigotry that has been developing in this article and others associated with the "Churches of God." From 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2007

I get your point. I had absolutely no idea who Tkach was (or that the Worldwide Churches of God existed) until I read the article a few days ago (result of a Random Article). My point is that reform/reformation is common usage in organisational/doctrinal change. It isn't common usage for changes in society. Hence the Reformation (religious) vs the Renaissance or Revolution (society/cultural). Wiktionary supports this.
As far as the POV flavour of the site, I agree that it is anything but neutral. I also note that the word "reform" is scattered throughout the document, including the section we are talking about. Some of the statements in which the word is used are very POV and these should be changed, so that the article highlights the nature and intent of the reform (or change!) and gives a balanced analysis of their impact and outcome. Doing that makes the use of the word reform or change less critical, because the article will explain the outcome of the action and readers can make their own judgement, in accordance with their personal worldview.
In summary, I don't think the word reform is incorrectly used. I do think the article needs work to remove POV, so that the 'reforms' are explained and analysed in a NPOV manner.
Having said all that, I'm happy to leave the wording as it stands. Would encourage you - or someone else with knowledge about the changes to consider rewording the article to give a balanced explanation and analysis of them. Wikipeterproject 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your agreeable spirit.

One final note: You pointed out a couple times the "technical correctness" (my words) of the usage of the term "reform". Please realize that I've been reasoning with you as one who possesses a degree in history and has always had an interest in the history of religion in Europe. We both know that "Reformation" includes infinitely more than some doctrinal changes: it is a term that means the wholesale altering or bringing into a new "form" (hence "reformation") of the religious (and subsequently the political) landscape of Europe. To the common man who reads wikipedia of which I consider myself one, the term "reformation' means something different than "reform". But even the standard, esoteric usage of "reform" among historians and intellectuals which you also alluded to, which to them may imply any "change", or "change that was intended to be reform", doesn't change the fact that THE APPARENT MEANING of the word "reform" to the average person who reads Wikipedia--or who will use it to find out what happened to the church in question--causes them to automatically think that something was WRONG that needed to be changed.

Therefore this term's usage as a heading is intended to preemptively introduce prejudice into the mind of the reader, prepping them for the reading of the actual details of the text beneath--you of course mentioned the heavy POV of the article. What am I implying? I'll go one step beyond simple POV problems and add this: I have been amazed at the lack of discussion on this page concerning the new book Raising the Ruins, out for three months now, which uses court documents obtained through discovery in the WCG vs PCG legal battle ( over fair use of H. W. Armstrong’s work's). I put up a post over two weeks ago challenging the editors to discuss this book in the open, and still no response. I've combed this discussion page up and down, and not a single reference to it besides mine. The citations in that book of internal WCG memos and emails, along with court testimony from WCG employees, forms a crystal clear picture of a group of leaders who simply hijacked a religious organization, "...destroyed (its) work, sold the Church's assets, and hoarded the money (see back jacket of Raising the Ruins)." The WCG leadership evidently tried to keep those documents from being made public, even using the copyright deal they struck as leverage (it appears that ultimately the PCG refused to surrender their right to use the documents, so then the WCG decided to sell the copyrights to HWA's works to the PCG anyway, taking the money and running--3 million dollars.)

One gets the distinct, unsavory impression that the editors of this page are using Wikipedia as a platform to spin their own self-serving version of events--perhaps because they were involved in those events--to manipulate public opinion and the rank and file of their own membership. After all, the WCG certainly would even now have a PR department. (Incidentally, some in the leadership of the WCG are famous for their "scholarly" approach to things, and this forum suits their abilities to a tee)

The use of "reform" really amounts to the editors taking advantage of the flawed, quirkiness of the English language and combining that with esoteric historiography to justify it, for the purpose of, by all appearances--especially given the bigotry displayed by some of the same editors in other articles--self-serving manipulation of public opinion. It becomes a subtle form of brainwashing, or psychological manipulation, and I intend to do my very best to thwart it.

I hope you agree and will join in, and perhaps even read Raising the Ruins. From 67.80.157.45 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Jebrady[reply]

If what you say is right, they were quite some reforms - hijacking, destruction, mismanagement! :-) Perhaps they can be added to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/5/165051/5891 .
In the 1950's China's Mao Tse Tung introduced reforms:
His first act on coming to power was to seize the land from the landlords and give it to the peasants. One and a half million landlords were killed in the early 1950s in Mao's "land reforms". Campaigns followed against the "Rightists" or intellectuals whom Mao feared would oppose him. Hundreds of thousands of teachers, lecturers and professionals died. In the "Great Leap Forward" Mao mobilised the entire population to kill sparrows because they ate grain and to build furnaces to manufacture home-made steel. Both campaigns failed and, because peasant labour had been diverted from agriculture, the harvests failed too. 43 million Chinese died of starvation as a result of Mao's disastrous policies in the late 50s and early 60s. (http://www.teleimages.com/program.php?id=7&pt=The%25Secret%25Life%25of%25Chairman%25Mao).
Certainly some crazy and/or self-centred "reformers" out there!
Good luck with your efforts in getting this article balanced and NPOV.
Wikipeterproject 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments overall, including the Mao passage, and for having an open mind, being so flexible within our dialogue. Take care, and thanks also for the well-wishes. 67.80.157.45 07:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)From Jebbrady[reply]

Likewise! Nothing wrong with some robust debate, is there! Cheers, Wikipeterproject 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! 67.80.157.45 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)jebbrady[reply]

Hi, after the changes in the WCG had occurred, some of the leadership were calling it the second reformation. If you research about the 5 year plan that took place in 1988/89 timeframe you may find that there was an intent to change the teachings of the church since actually prior to that time. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.143.112 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2007

Yes, that thoroughly establisehd and verified by the outstanding source material cited in Raising th eRuins. The seeds of change were germinating before H.W. Armstrong died, and continued on into the 1980's, i.e. even after HWA's "housecleaning" and expulsions of the late 70's. From 67.80.157.45 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

Raising the Ruins Increases Its Visibility

I've become aware that Raising the Ruins is now being given prominent open face displays in major book stores like Barnes and Noble, and is now getting into the airport shops. This development has come much sooner than anticipated, so we are going to have to really scramble to get this article up to date. This book, as mentioned above, uses internal WCG memos and emails obtained through discovery, along with courtroom testimony of WCG officials----by far the best source material this article has ever had at it's disposal--to catalogue the transformation of the Worldwide Church of God.

Again, this has all developed so rapidly--the book has only been in print for about 2 1/2 months, and already it's being given "open face" display, and is already appearing at airport Barnes and Nobles. We are going to have to really scramble to get this article up to date.

Any ideas or comments are welcome and encouraged.

The fourth pargraph after the (new) heading "Tkach's doctrinal Changes" must now be totally rewritten or deleted. A discussion on this must begin immediately. In the meantime, I will be working on an up to date, well-cited improvment to that passage, with the aim of inserting it by the middle of January.

67.80.157.45 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

We Have No Choice: Obsolete Passage Must Be Immediately Deleted, and Rebuilt From Scratch

In light of chapters five (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2852 ) and six of Raising the Ruins, courtesy of court documents from WCG vs PCG, the last two paragraphs of the section "Doctrinal Changes Under Tkach" are obsolete at best and, at worse, pretty embarrassing. Theses passages unequivically argue that the changes were not planned and germinated before Armstrongs death, but that "in fact, the reforms were initially driven by a reexamination of church literature that was mainly spurred by questions posed by church ministers and members."

This is now indisputably in direct oppostion to documented fact, based on the best sources a historian could ever dream of: Internal WCG memos and emails obtained through discovery, and employee testimonies, coupled with a simple edtorial history of deletions of key passages in literature written by Armstrong even while he was still alive, but virtually blind and busy with writing Mystery of the Ages.

Please everyone, purchase the book and read the two chapters, and start an open dialogue on this page as to how to rebuild the section without POV veering one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2007

Still No Dialogue on Raising the Ruins

This book has been out since early November and there is still no discussion anywhere on this page from the regular editors on what it means for this article and how to incorporate this fabulous new source material into the article. The book is selling for less than $15, and is available through Amazon.com, as well as Borders, Ingram, and Barnes and Noble, so there is no reason for the editors of this page to not be eating it up as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2007

Hard to follow the Talk page

I have wathced this artilce for a few months now from the time a peer review was requested. It is still on my watchlist and I visit the page occassionally. I noticed a bit of dialogue on the Talk page but in my opinion the dialogue is getting very difficult to follow. Apparently a new book has come out (Raising the Ruins) and may be a source of information. Can we expect that based on the title of this book the book itself will not be biased? I did not know anything about Tkach before seeing this article a few months ago but I was familiar with Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, the publication The Plain Truth', had heard some of the radio broadcasts a few years ago, etc. In fact it was interesting to read what had happened because some of these things had dissappeared from view and I had wondered where they went. In any case the talk page now has me confused and I do not understand what are the current issues? Is the discussion regarding the article NPOV or is it about How and whether information from the recently published book might be used? Mfields1 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Both issues, the POV and the new information form Raising the Ruins, are critically important. As for the potential bias of any book, the encyclopedia article writer/ editor (and hopefully most historians) always have a hierarchy of the kinds of sources they uses to build from and cite. Primary sources are the best source for the author, and there is a heirarchy within that even. In terms hierarchy of sources and this article on TKach, I don't think anyone can think of a type of primary source material better than that used and cited exaustively throughout the book Raising the Ruins: That is, Tkach's WCG employees' testimony in a court of law--under penalty of perjury, and internal WCG memos and emails and minutes obtained through the legal discovery process of the court trial (click on that link for a good, succinct Wikipedia definition of "discovery"). Raising the Ruins cost me less that $13 and is available everywhere, so check out whether or not it presents "the facts" in a fair or convincing way (it is a fascinating, riveting read by the way--mixed with some humor, and well written). You'll see, through common sense, that internal WCG memos and emails and court testimony, and a simple editng history of the doctrinal changes to books and booklets all cannot lie or spin, and no amount of emotional and intellectual investment on one side of the debate by the author will take away from the value of such fabulous source material. One final note, study carefully the source material used thus far in this article (mentioned at times on this discussion page by the editors), and you'll see that it is making extensive use of the writings (versions of events) of the people who apparently have the MOST TO HIDE, including a book written by Joseph Tkach Jr. on the subject of the transformation. These books of course are their personal accounts--hearsay--not based on courtroom testimony and documents obtained through the discovery process. As you will see, there is a clash between their version of events, and what eventually came out in the court trial--things they probably hoped would never see the light of day--or perhaps, unfortuanately, were to brazen to care as long as they were able to hoard the church's financial assets.

Thanks again for your interest. I encourage you to read the book and help clean up this article! 67.80.157.45 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

The Historian's Hierarchy of Source Material

When it comes to the potential bias of any book as a secondary source, the encyclopedia article writer/ editor (and hopefully most historians) always have a hierarchy of the kinds of sources they uses to build from and cite. Primary sources are the best source for the author, and there is a heirarchy within that even. In terms hierarchy of sources and this article on TKach, I don't think anyone can think of a type of primary source material better than that used and cited exaustively throughout the book Raising the Ruins: That is, Tkach's WCG employees' testimony in a court of law--under penalty of perjury, and internal WCG memos and emails and minutes obtained through the legal discovery process of the court trial (click on that link for a good, succinct Wikipedia definition of "discovery"). Raising the Ruins cost me less that $13 and is available everywhere, so check out whether or not it presents "the facts" in a fair or convincing way (it is a fascinating, riveting read by the way--mixed with some humor, and well written). You'll see, through common sense, that internal WCG memos and emails and court testimony, and a simple editng history of the doctrinal changes to books and booklets all cannot lie or spin, and no amount of emotional and intellectual investment on one side of the debate by the author will take away from the value of such fabulous source material. One final note, study carefully the source material used thus far in this article (mentioned at times on this discussion page by the editors), and you'll see that it is making extensive use of the writings (versions of events) of the people who apparently have the MOST TO HIDE, including a book written by Joseph Tkach Jr. on the subject of the transformation. These books of course are their personal accounts--hearsay--not based on courtroom testimony and documents obtained through the discovery process. As you will see, there is a clash between their version of events, and what eventually came out in the court trial--things they probably hoped would never see the light of day--or perhaps, unfortuanately, were to brazen to care as long as they were able to hoard the church's financial assets.

If someone wants to take the time to get photocopies of the actual court documents for the Philadelphia Church of God, we could cite them directly. We may be able to do that anyway by using the endnores of raisinfg the Ruins--I'll havr to check inot that (As a history major, I was able to do that if I remember right). Regardless, the citations in Raising the Ruins are by FAR the best thing that has ever happened to the accuracy of this article. 67.80.157.45 09:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

Chaptor Five of Raising the Ruins Available Online

Raising the Ruins has apparently been serialized on a website called thetrumpet.com, with Chaptor Five newly available for the next month or so. This chaptor was recently cited by me as making a major rewrite of the section "Doctrinal Changes Under Tkach" an imperitative. http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2852 A fascinating reas for anyone interested in the history and tranformation of the Old WCG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Tkach3bHWA.gif

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tkach5preaching.gif

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tkachw1.gif

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Assessment comment The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joseph W. Tkach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following
several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well-citated article, nice prose with good structure and offering a full assessment of Tkach's career and controversial decisions.--Yannismarou 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph W. Tkach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns

I'm looking through this article for

WP:URFA/2020, a drive to revitalize older featured articles. I'm a bit concerned by the degree of which this article relies on two somewhat-affiliated sources: a book written by the subject's son, and the Ambassador Report, which based on this appears to be a series of exposé pieces by a group of former Ambassador College students seeking to reveal stuff the WCG was hiding. The fact that this article is largely prepared on those two sources, one of which is clearly affiliated with Tkach and the other of which is really too close to the situation to be independent is concerning. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_W._Tkach&oldid=1206480625"