Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marvin Shilmer (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 8 February 2008 (→Regarding Shilmer's Remarks tagged 20:45, 7 February 2008: for Cfrito, a WARNING and comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:USRD-news-subscription

Chris walley

A tag has been placed on Chris walley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Hey, welcome to Misplaced Pages. First, I see you added the template to your user page, but you should add your name to the list of WPTC participants. Next, the WPTC has its own IRC channel, in which a lot of the WPTC members meet to talk about storms and other topics. If you have Chatzilla, you can use that, but the easiest way is to use this IRC page - put your name as your name, irc.freenode.net as the server, and #wiki-hurricanes as the server. They'll be able to give you help right away. Alright, the thing about articles is that the first one might be a bit difficult, but once you start the rest get easier. Adding to existing articles is one way to make things easier, as is an article on something you're interested in. For example, do you prefer older articles? Newer? Typhoons? Cyclones in the Indian Ocean? Pacific storms? If you like newer storms in the NHC basin (which a lot of people do), what about working on Hurricane Henriette (2007)? Regardless which one you pick, I'll give you some hints to get you along. The first is references; everything you add to the article needs to be cited by a reliable source. The official agency for the warning basin is the best source, but for things like impact and preparations, news sources are fine.

The first major part of the article is the storm history. Storms from last year and before have tropical cyclone reports back to 1995 in html, with older scanned reports back to 1958 (here). For storms from this year without a report, you'd use National Hurricane Center discussions (linked above in Hurricane Season Tropical Cyclone Advisory Archive section), and for the history prior to its first advisory, you'd use tropical weather outlooks (here is the overall archive link). The storm history should provide an entire meteorological history of the storm. Not every single detail needs to be listed, but be sure to include its track (what factors determined the track), its intensity (what factors caused it to strengthen or weaken), and landfalls. Extreme examples of good storm histories are Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma.

Next is preparations. These include tropical cyclone watches and warnings (which can be found in the NHC archive link), evacuations, and any other preparedness actions. Next is impact, which is just a collection of impact the storm caused (damage, deaths, people affected, injuries, damage totals, etc.) Last is aftermath (including monetary aid to people affected, disaster declarations, ect.), but typically that section is only included for more impacting storms (meaning most storm articles will only have storm history, preparations, and impact).

If there's any more questions, give me a post. See you around! Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I see you started working on Henriette. One little thing, though - you should use the tropical weather outlooks - they're easier to use than the discussions, although the discussions are more in depth. Keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends how interesting the storm history was. A good storm history tells the reader what was going on throughout the storm's lifetime. What circumstances lead to its formation? What conditions allowed the depression to strengthen into a tropical storm? Why did it take the path that it took? Did it slowly becoming better organized, or did low shear and warm waters allow an eyewall to quickly form? Unfortunately, every storm is different, but why don't you use Hurricane Kenna as an example? It's a featured article for a Pacific hurricane that hit Mexico, and aside from the strength, they were two similar storms. One more thing I should mention is that there are no deadlines for Misplaced Pages. The project could feasibly last for centuries, and while it is useful to have a storm article ready while there is a great interest in it, after it is done the article is there for historical purposes, I guess. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can work on whatever article you want at any time. You don't have to do Henriette if you don't want to. To that, I have two opposing viewpoints. One is that the article can always be finished later on - there is no time limit to get it done. On the other hand, there are hundreds of start articles like Henriette, many of which are never finished, and so when someone has one of them as a project and they drop it, it's a shame. Sandboxes are made by adding a link to them; that may sound confusing, but all you would have to do is add content to User:Seddon69/Sandbox to consider it a sandbox. Regarding Cosme, you can do that if you want. I'd like to note, however, that it did very little, and that it might be a little difficult to make a full article. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

There is an official and more efficient way of warning vandals. You can see all about them and how to use them here. Thanks. ---CWY2190 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2000 NIO

Hey. One thing is that articles should be fairly ready by the time they are published. Given that the sandbox has little more than what is in the 2000-2004 season article, I don't see too much of a need to publish it as it is. I recommend you expand the storm sections. A full paragraph on storm history for each of them, as well as a paragraph of impact (if available) would be nice. Be sure, when you look at it, that it looks like other season articles do. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NY CRs

Could you go through and redirect the talk pages as well? Otherwise it throws off our assessment stats. Thanks, Rschen7754 (T C) 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Climate Change - solutions

New article about the global climate crisis solutions. (Cars, sun, wind vehicles like Toyota Prius)--Tamás Kádár 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox

I think the distinction between the storm category and the main text of the infobox is the distinction between body and header text. When you made that edit the labels of the various parts of the body: formed, dissipated and so on were bouncing around; it looks better to have those aligned IMO. I think you got mixed up with the season infobox which is central (I'm trying to figure out how).

As for the other edit that looks good as it centralises the various category info. The edits are actually different. Oh, and the reason the storm name is not left aligned in the markup is that it is technically a table caption. That is handled by the site CSS, which produces a centrally aligned text.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wellington Street (Ottawa)

Hey, just wanted to drop a friendly note to you. I understand recently you deleted a clickable map from this article. I would be best if next time you add your reasoning to your edit summary or to the talk page. That way, no one thinks it is vandalism by blanking a section of a page. Thanks and happy editing! Icestorm815 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging WikiProjects

Hi, there is a proposal to merge inactive WikiProject (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Climate change and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Energy development) into WikiProject Environment. Please voice your opinions. OhanaUnited 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.32 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned

Thanks for asking. I still feel like it was "too easy"; the devil will certainly be in the details. I don't like how I've gotten almost no input on WT:HWY about whether is fine, especially from the people that started out wanting to use the term when I proposed avoiding it. --NE2 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re: not much point in this

True the edit summary's look rediculous, and 1 out of every 20 of my AWB edits are nothing more than a space added before / after == on section headings. But why I'm using AWB on the Hurricane articles is to do the following:

• Fix numerous spelling and formating errors
• Update the refrences template
• Replace USD With USD - > Eliminate redirect
• Replace mbar With mbar - > Eliminate double redirect
• Replace hPa With hPa - > Eliminate double redirect
  • Repair multiple variants of the above to units of measure causing redirects or misdirects
• Replace Yucatan with Yucatán - > Eliminate Redirects

The addition of spaces within the section headings is meerly a work around for a bug within AWB Currently, and oddly about the only thing showing up in the edit summary.

So you see there is much of a point for it and AWB is the usefull tool I choose to use as it's making multiple usefull edits. Only issue remaining is the stupid summary :( Slysplace | 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your additional comments,

Actually A quick look at The Manual of Style says that the spaces are optional Slysplace | 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tropical cyclone IRC

I tried, but it says that there is no channel. Juliancolton (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are those? Juliancolton (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure how that IRC works. Does there have to be other users on it? Juliancolton (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will download it later. Have you gotten any feedback on the 1988 FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I use my parents computer...I don't know if they want me downloading all sorts of stuff into it. Juliancolton (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i got in, and I see you and a couple other users, and a whole bunch of code. What do I do from here? Juliancolton (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I can see your messages on the IRC. Can you see me on it? I can't. Juliancolton (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't have firewall. Juliancolton (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw it. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore + climate solutions

"I was just wondering whether you think this project can be salvaged and new life put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon69 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)"

I think we have to write some article about the solutions with a lot of details. We should edit the Al Gore article, to develope , to finish to Feature article. (Bali conference)--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Juliancolotn/List of Atlantic-Pacific corssover hurricanes

HEy, sorry I didn't notice your post on this. Anyway, is the name good enough? I think crossover hurricane is a good name, but i don't know if changeover would be better. Juliancolton (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the vandalism to Widor. A look into this IP's history will reveal a consistent pattern of similarly nonsensical inserts - does this count as vandalism and should it be reported?

Incidentally I see you are on the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. Being an aficionado of hurricane info and trivia, I'd be interested in joining - how do I go about doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New World Translation

• Seddon69: Thank you for taking on the task of mediating the dispute going on regarding the article New World Translation. It has been a very frustrating experience. Your input is most welcome.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Which source is it that you seek? If the material is in my personal library I am happy to email a copy to you for your personal review but not for distribution. If the material is a library item then we will have to work out something else. You ask for page numbers. I have provided page numbers in all my citations, except for the one of Fred Franz’s university transcript. Is this the only source material you need?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I sent you two emails. The second one provides an email address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I sent the document you requested. Please verify receipt.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: If you are asking about Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, you can find this in almost any large library. If you are unable to find this work then let me know and I’ll scan and email the appropriate pages sometime tomorrow.

If you are asking about Cetnar’s statement quoted in the book We Left Jehovah's Witnesses by Ed Gruss, this book will be harder to find, but without a doubt your library can retrieve one for your review. Unfortunately I do not have this particular book in my own collection, though I have read it. If you are unable to get your hands on a copy I will see what I can do. Optionally, you can take a look at the following to online articles where both Cetnar and Franz are both cited. I do not suggest these online article authenticate the material, but you may find them helpful in your deliberations:

http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jwnwt.htm

http://www.ukapologetics.net/newworld.html

Regarding Cetnar, I do have a leaflet he published in letter form wherein he names individuals who worked within the NWT Committee. I have this as a pdf file and can share it if you want. But this document is difficult to cite because it is undated, and originality is disputable because all I have for authentication is William Cetnar’s widow’s word that the document was of her deceased husband. But, if you want me to send this, I will. Your considered approach to this whole episode is very much appreciated, not to mention refreshing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I have emailed two documents that should take care of your requests. Please confirm receipt. If you need something more please inform.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: There is no foul. I just wanted to make sure Vassalis78 understood clearly that you had the same document he inquired of. Saying the document had a "watchtower" watermark suggests something about the document's authenticity in terms of the Watchtower organization. The watermark is "watchthetower". Not "watchtower". I was just clarifying things for sake of readers and editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: It has been over a week. You have requested information from editors. May I ask what in the world is taking so long for you to review the relatively small of amount of source data at issue in this matter, and why by now you have not contributed substantially to remedial action? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Seddon69: Welcome. We all look forward to your input. -- cfrito (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I have been tied up responding yet again to an interrogatory by Shilmer for the benefit of the other editors

To answer at least partly, I made several edits, mostly removing unqualified statements like "F Franz failed to earn a post-graduate degree or doctorate" since the reference provided by Shilmer did not actually say that (I don't know of a college transcript that predicts the future like that), and the word "failed" suggests that he tried but could not make the grade, which is completely misleading and false. Beyond this the fact that he personally sought this transcript and then provided an analysis of its contents and editorialized on its meaning in the Article constitutes Original Research.

I have also repeatedly deleted the hearsay testimony of anti-JW's such as W Cetnar and R Franz on the basis that these are recollections from memoirs and cannot be corroborated. Shilmer has repeatedly built a circumstantial cases for their probabilistic truth, but cannot supply documentation beyond R Franz's memoir and personal testimonials of another former JW. The two lists are not identical, and even Shilmer agrees that the list is not comprehensive. Thus such a list can never address the question about the technical skill of the translation team, and is merely a point of trivia pushed by some ex-JW's with questionable ethics (R Franz had taken an explicit oath of confidentiality which he felt no longer applied when he began disliking his former colleagues). It cannot be determined whether the list is accurate and given the nature of the source memoirs a reasonable doubt exists as to their veracity in general. And since the NWT has included many other still-unnamed translators and editors and researchers, any partial list, true or not, cannot possibly be used a basis of criticism which is the very premise for its inclusion.

I have tried to add balance to the sweeping criticisms by theologians such as Rowley and Ankerberg by referencing the famous debate between Sir Thomas More and William Tyndale and Martin Luther, where More gives the same criticisms of Tyndale's and Luther's works (including the references to More's Heresies and Tyndale's Reply). While this is not directly addressing the NWT itself, it did address the sense that the NWT was somehow unique in garnering hyper-negative criticism from the established clergy of the day. This is relevant since the bulk of the references are from competing theologians who simply refer to the same handful of linguists, most of whom are theologians themselves. This recursion has the effect of adding undue weight to both the underlying scholars' comments and confers authority in linguistics to theologians who lack them otherwise. When I added an edit stating that it is difficult indeed to divorce theology from Bible translations and the criticisms of Bible translations I cited Dr. Furuli's "Role of Bias and Theology in Bible Translations". Shilmer summarily deleted it because, 'critics don't translate, they criticize.' Of course critics do translate or they would have no basis for their critique and so they are subject to the influences. When I moved historical facts to the History section, Shilmer added critics comments there too,as if their comments were somehow relevant to the history of the work simply by virtue of the critics having said those things in the past.

I hope this is what you were looking for. There are other edits and references, but hopefully this will be enough to get the Editors back on track and hopefully get the Article's rating improved from the "B" it is today. -- cfrito (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exception Taken!

Seddon69: I take exception to your warning. If you check the talk page you will see where I restrained from further edits pending an explanation from editor Cfrito. This is my standard method. I have just about had it with the means and methods applied to this NWT article among editors. Academic rigor and common decency have been caste to the wayside replaced with idiosyncratic methods of rank bias and schoolboy standards of presentation. If you do not have the time or wherewithal to deal with this then I ask that you recuse yourself and let someone else work in your stead. Objective editing is testable. I suggest you begin testing the veracity of edits by myself and Cfrito, and speak up about it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

HERE--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to excise myself from this case. I think you and Addhoc are equipped to handle it, and then I would feel more comfortable moving on to another case. Let me know that this is fine with you. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

I noticed you are attempting to mediate this case. Has it been closed? The ip has been blocked for a month because of disruption there. I also note that you co-mediator has been indef blocked as a sock. Is there anything I can do to help to wind this up? -JodyB _talk 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

If you need any help with this case, it has spilled over into my normal domain of reliable sources and verifiability, and I'd be available to assist in mediating as well, having recently joined the Cabal (*eerie music*)Wjhonson (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1988 AHS FA

Congrats on your promotion. Have you selected an article, as part of the contest? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Seddon, thanks for the help on how to join WP:TROP. I think for now, since I don't have a lot of time to devote to Misplaced Pages, I'm going to focus my energies on another project that I'm currently involved in. I'm saving your note, though, and will join the project at some future date - hopefully not too long! I'm most interested in Atlantic hurricanes of the 20th century and have accumulated a considerable knowledge of them and statistics relating to them - Australian cyclones are fascinating too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NTROP newsletter

Hi. As you may know, the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter was started. If you would like to receive the newsletter, place you name here. Also, we need editors for the newsletter. So, sign up at the nesletter HQ to be an editor, and to help out with the next issue, go to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter/February 2008. Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My NWT Sandbox

Seddon69: Creating your NWT sandbox is a good idea. I created one earlier today to continue working on the article. You can view it at the link above.

Thanks for spending time on this. I know some of my responses have probably sounded harsh, and I apologize if any feelings are hurt. This was not my intent. The fact is you are spending your time (little or great, quick or slow) trying to help. We should be grateful. I am grateful and do not want to leave it unsaid. Thanks for your help. If you need more in the way of reference material, let me know.

By the way, I never heard back from you regarding whether you received the secondary source documents about the identity of NWT translators. Did you get this information? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: On the matter of your sandbox reference, http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html, do you believe this to be an accurate, fact-checked source? In short do you believe that this source is a reliable source? If so, why? -- cfrito (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I understand your position and I do greatly appreciate your stepping in to help add perspective to this situation. But regarding the references you added to your sandbox NWT Article, I must make a few points (please don't misunderstand, I am not seeking to "shred" for shredding's sake). Very little care was taken by the editors to ensure the writings and references were accurate on these websites. For example, in an attempt to add extreme undue weight, the http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html web page author writes, "But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as..." This is inexcusable to use the plural for R Franz. And interestingly, this site also shows, by R Franz's own hand that R Franz consulted on specific renderings and lexical matters regarding the NWT. That R Franz should leave himself off the list as having worked on the translation is equally inexcusable and deliberately dishonest. And the same website quotes Penton as saying that, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." But the second website you reference includes this statement, "Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student.". So if this writer is being intellectually honest and Fred Franz was unable to translate even a simple Hebrew sentence, then how could Penton be correct in saying that it was virtually exclusively Fred Franz's work? Cetnar's list includes Henschel, and he's supposedly credible too. Cetnar interviewed Goodspeed specifically with respect to the NWT. No one disputes that Goodspeed was impressed with the work for he wrote in late 1950, ""I am interested in the mission work of your people, and in its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." The freeminds.org editor reports that D r Goodspeed, 4 years before the Scottish trial involving Fred Franz, says the work is pleasing but then also reports Franz is simply not capable of even the simplest translating task. But Penton says it was virtually all Fred Franz's work. So, is Penton correct? Is R Franz correct? Is Cetnar correct? Should R Franz be included? Do any of them really know? The other information has some serious flaws too, but I don't want to give the impression that I am just "shredding" here. My interest is to not mislead NWT Article readers. As frustrating as it may be, we cannot know who actually worked on what and to what extent without clarification from those who did the work or from the publisher. With such conflicts and misstatements, and internal to each individual author's own websites, can they truly be relied upon to give opinions? Can the factual statements truly be trusted? Should anyone's opinions even matter in an instance where it is a factual issue involved? So what happens to the quality of the Article if these names are left out? I argue that its value and integrity are vastly improved because it will eliminate trivia and innuendo. -- cfrito (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For Cfrito and the sake of Seddon69: Cfrito, each and every question you relate has simple answers. 1) Because a person is unable or unwilling to translate a single Hebrew text on a witness stand is not evidence they are unable to translate the text at their own pace and with the aid of translation tools. 2) Penton expresses that Franz brought to bear his formal education in Greek together with his self-taught command of Hebrew as the chief translator of the NWT. 3) Ray Franz has not suggested he worked on the NWT, and the article published online by Bible Research (edited by Michael Marlowe) does not suggest otherwise. 4) I agree the article published by Bible Research erred with the plural "members" of the Governing Body. Likely the editor had in mind two sources (Ray Franz and William Cetnar) but mistook the high position held by Cetnar. 5) Cetnar's inclusion of Henschel was his observation from the early 1950s. Ray Franz made his observations in the 1970s. Hence there is no contradiction by Cetnar including Henschel and Ray Franz not including Henschel. Both men simply related their own observations of who was working on the NWT translation committee during their respective tenure at Watchtower. If you need more please inform. 6) No one sugggests the names of NWT translators should be presented in the article as fact/truth. Information should be presented as presented by the source or sources.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Shilmer agrees that the information is based on recollection, is error-prone, opinions rather than facts, and the two websites include careless errors. They are unsuitable for inclusion because they do not meet the Reliable Sources criteria. Since Fred Franz seems to be the key figure at any rate, and we have positive confirmation, we should just stick to the facts and leave the speculations of others out of it. Shilmer will continue with his tantrums only because he can't add all the anti-writing references he so desperately needs to add to feel good about himself. Just look at how hard he is working to include pure suspicion masquerading as fact, and compare that to how hard he works to make sure that onlyexternally sourced strictly-double-checked factual information about Fred Franz be let in, even though it is more relevant than any whodunit suspects. He won't even allow Fred's own words in from his autobiographical account about his very own background, but would abuse and harass anyone disallowing R Franz's recollections about matters he only observed from afar, who according to Shilmer did not work on the NWT (but according to the excerpt on the website quoting from RF's self-promoting book did actually work on it). So who do we believe? What's the point? How will anyone reading this encyclopedic article benefit? Shilmer can rationalize all he wants but the defects in these sources are too careless, too misleading, too complete, to pervasive, to simply hand-wave away. -- cfrito (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for the sake of Seddon69: Demonstrably you misperceive information.

1) It is false that the article edited by Michael Marlowe suggests that Ray Franz ‘worked on’ the NWT. Ray Franz ‘worked on’ a Bible dictionary later titled Aid to Bible Understanding.

2) It is false that I “won’t even allow Fred’s own words in from his autobiographical account”. If you check my NWT sandbox article you will find this source quoted. What I have objected to is making assertions of this source that the source does not support.

3) It is false that I have agreed that the information of NWT translators is “error-prone” or not factual. This information is published as firsthand testimony and this is how it has been presented; no more and no less.

The benefit for including the information of NWT translators is the same benefit for including all other information in an encyclopedic entry: to expose readers and researchers to the world’s knowledge base on a subject basis. We find the information of NWT translators presented and used by secondary source after secondary source when these address the production and history of the NWT. These present the information as reliable and, accordingly, synthesize various conclusions from it in conjunction with other pieces of information. All these sources accept the information as reliable and coming from reliable sources. Can you name even a single solitary published source that disputes the reliability of this information? Can you?

The misconception of information by you is so profound that I fear communication may be impossible. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: A point-for-point rebuttal showing Shilmer's arrogance and misdirection:

1. Marlowe doesn't say that R Franz worked on the NWT, R Franz does. The fact that Marlowe doesn't say it is a mystery. The quote from R Franz's book from Marlowe's page, "When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase..." R Franz was actively advising and influencing the NWT.

2. If anyone cares to read the NWT Talk Page and the Edit History reversals by Shilmer, it's clear Shilmer exerted great effort in eliminating important details about Fred Franz such as his statement that he indeed studied Biblical Greek, that he was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship, and that he left University because a change in theology much to the disappointment of the school faculty. Shilmer subsequently added them to his sandbox page, showing that he now fundamentally agrees with me, but needs to position it as though it were originally his ideas and bury the material fact that a large reason for Mediation has been his truculence and arrogance. Indeed his sandbox version is now not much different from the version publicly available, which Shilmer has characterized as "evil".

3. Shilmer, in his 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) address above, admits that Cetnar's and R Franz's lists were based on "observations" and not on any particular documented evidence. One lists Henschel, the other does not. Henschel was a contemporary of R Franz, so it isn't as though they were unknown to each other. Could it be that Henschel only made minor contributions? Perhaps, but R Franz did at least that too, so R Franz should be listed as a translator. Shilmer references Penton who says that the NWT work was principally Fred Franz's, i.e., that everyone else was inconsequential. So why are the others listed at all? And according to Seddon69's reference, under the subheading "Are they Bible Scholars?" the editor writes, "Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student." Clearly this writing says that Fred Franz perjured himself. He 'claimed but was unable', even to a second-year student. So either Penton is right or this editor is correct, but not both. No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages, but this editor clearly is smearing Fred Franz. This is a basic inaccuracy and demonstrates even in the most obvious and easy-to-test areas, it is unreliable. The sources for these names still comes down to R Franz and Cetnar, of who Shilmer deliberately writes twice that both merely observed and that their observations were limited and error-prone. All the other sources who parrot these two do not make the lists more reliable, just more widespread. I am on no crusade to stop the perpetuating of these lists, but Misplaced Pages should not perpetuate unreliable information that is factually wrong and that cannot be proven at all.The article should remain silent on speculations, and list Fred Franz, not as a translator but as its first chief editor.

As to the disputes of reliability of the information: Penton says it was all Fred Franz. R Franz says Henschel wasn't involved. Cetnar says Henschel was involved. Both worked with Henschel and was "observable" to both (and personally known to both). The Watchtower says that no one will ever know. R Franz says he consulted on passages and that his input was incorporated and thus he worked on it too. Penton argues that incidental input is irrelevant, that there is one name behind the NWT, Fred Franz, and so R Franz shouldn't be listed. But R Franz listed others that according to Penton were insignificant, and so R Franz should have listed himself (it was his admission that he influences certain verses). And why is it relevant? Purportedly to understand better why certain verses were rendered in a particular way so we must know who rendered them. But we cannot. The lists are disputed even among those who publish them..And the issue at hand is not experts examining facts and drawing reasonable conclusions, it is pure gossip, a coffee klatsch, book-selling, idle speculation. Of all these publishers of various lists containing their guesses, only the Watchtower emerges as reliable: No one knows and the ones who did the work aren't talking. I have argued from the beginning that tis is the approach the NWT Article should take: List Fred Franz, his established credentials, relevant parts from his autobiographical account, and the Watchtower's position that the true translators will never be exactly known, and that it is irrelevant. All the language scholars that comment on the NWT texts did so, and continue to do so, without requiring individual references to the translators and as such the Watchtower and the NWT Committee have been proved correct and the names of those doing the work are irrelevant. -- cfrito (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69: You presume so much I hardly know how to respond, or where to begin!

1. Because some change occurred in the NWT after a discussion between Ray and Fred Franz about the same detail does not mean Ray’s question and the resulting discussion was the proximate cause of the change or that the Ray was ‘working on’ the NWT. What you write on this point is one large assumption.

2. I have never resisted using Fred Franz’s autobiographical material. Furthermore, were you to actually research the history page you find that I am the editor who first referenced Franz’s autobiographical account in the May 1987 Watchtower journal. You are the editor who removed the reference to Franz’s autobiography I am also the first editor who began citing Fred Franz’s words from his autobiographical account. What I have resisted is making assertions of this source that the source does not support. In your immediate reply above you again make such an assertion when you write Fred Franz “was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship.” This is not what F Franz’s autobiography supports. His autobiography supports an assertion that Fred Franz says he was told he had been selected to receive a Rhodes scholarship. You presume on this point of proper use of information, and you falsely allege I somehow resist use of Fred Franz’s autobiographical account. (By the way, the “evil” comment was quoted from Misplaced Pages with a link provided. Apparently you are unable to understand Misplaced Pages humor as well as proper information presentation. Go back and check the link and the quotation marks.)

3. I have always maintained that Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s statements were their own firsthand knowledge. So what? This is also how I have presented what both had to say. This is Misplaced Pages policy, not to mention proper use of information. Furthermore, because a person shares information as their firsthand observation does not make the information unreliable. It just makes their statement their testimony. You do not seem to understand this though multiple editors (including Seddon69) have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions.

4. Because Fred Franz is stated as the principal translator does not mean he was the only member of the NWT translation committee.

5. Reading Hebrew and translating Hebrew to English English to Hebrew are two relevantly dissimilar tasks and abilities. Apparently you do not understand this, and you make assumptive assertions accordingly. There is no inconsistency between Penton’s statement and that from Seddon69’s source.

Edited to add: Author Ian Croft helps readers and researchers understand how the NWT could be “the work of one man” (Penton) yet that one man (Fred Franz) declines to attempt translation of a passage from English to Hebrew.

Croft suggests this is due “to an unquestionably high standard of research into the various translational tools available.” (Croft I, The New World Translation and Its Critics, Bethel Ministries Newsletter, Sept/Oct 1988) If it is the case that a translator accomplishes his or her work by means of meticulous research and use of “translation tools” then it is understandable why the same translator would opt not to attempt to translate on the fly during a courtroom cross examination without those translation tools. Though we should expect a fully trained expert in Hebrew and English translation to attempt translation under such circumstances, we should not expect someone that is less-than-expert to make the attempt, particularly if, as Croft theorizes, the translator is dependant on “translation tools”. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

6. You assert that “No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages” when published secondary source after published secondary source expresses just such a doubt. You just quoted one yourself!

7. That information was already on the street about who was actually performing translation work on the NWT prior to Cetnar or Ray Franz writing a word on the subject is demonstrated (proved) by author Tony Wills in his book A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition. Wills writes, “ Franz is a language scholar of no mean ability—he supervised the translation of the Bible from the original languages into the New World Translation, completed in 1961.” (Wills T, M.A., A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition, Lulu, 2006: 253, Originally published in 1967 by Vantage Press) Wills does not provide a source for this information, but he asserts it authoritatively in his work. Hence, prior to Cetnar and Ray Franz publishing anything word was already getting around. It is was Walter Martin says in Kingdom of the Cults, “many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were.”

8. You assert “R Franz says Henschel wasn't involved.” I do not think you understand the assertion of that statement made by you. Where exactly has Ray Franz said that Henschel was not involved? Where? Or, is this just another misguided assertion?

9. You have yet to provide a single source that agrees with you that Raymond Franz and/or William Cetnar are unreliable sources, not to mention all the secondary sources! Why should editors accept your opinion over the conclusion of reliability demonstrated in all the secondary sources cited in this instance when you cannot offer even a single published secondary source in support of your view?

10. The rest of what you write needs no response. Abundant published information already expressed shows how misguided is your extremely loose use of information and poor argument form. I really fear your misconceptions and assumptions will prevent communication, and mediation depends on good communication. In the meantime the NWT article is held hostage. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Okay well I must have come pretty close to the mark to get old Shilmer this worked up. As for the source that agrees with me, that the list that has no documentation, we have the Watchtower organization. They say they've never released the names. As for a second source that says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong, well that's Shimer's boy Penton: He says it's the work of principally one man, not five or six. And R Franz was working on renderings from the original languages into English and was concerned that the original meaning was altered with the existing phrasing. His version was accepted, according to his very own words. -- cfrito (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69: Worked up and working the problem are different things. I am working the problem, and I am doing it what published sources of information, and with published and well-known forms of logical construction and refutation, not to mention Misplaced Pages policy.

1. I asked that you provide a source that agrees with you that the information of NWT translators’ names is unreliable. You offer the Watchtower organization as a source that agrees with you. Guess what? Nowhere does the Watchtower organization even remotely suggest that the names offered by Cetnar and Ray Franz is unreliable information. Not even once. For that matter, the Watchtower organization has at no time suggested that as sources of information either Ray Franz or Cetnar are unreliable. Hence this offering of published evidence from you is worthless as support for your opinion. If you disagree then please offer an actual reference from Watchtower literature that editors can review to see if anywhere the Watchtower organization suggests that the names offered by Ray and Cetnar is unreliable, or that as sources either of these are unreliable. Go ahead. Show us.

2. You assert that Penton “says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong”. Actually what Penton writes is taken right from these sources, and he agrees with them. When Penton states that NWT translation work was principally the work of one man he agrees with Cetnar and Ray Franz:

Cetnar states: “Aside from Vice-President Franz (and his training was limited), none of the committee members had adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators.” (Gruss E, We Left The Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1974, p. 68)

Ray Franz states: “Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind.” (Franz R, Crisis of Conscience Third Edition, Commentary Press, 2000: 54)

Penton states: “From page 50 of Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz states that the members of it were his uncle, Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas. Then he notes: ‘Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati, but was only self taught in Hebrew.’ So to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man—Frederick Franz.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 173-4)

Your opinion on this point demonstrates either a severe lack of analytical skill or else outright dishonesty. I have given you the benefit of a doubt in the past by expressing the opinion that it is your analytical skill that is the problem. But your relentless pushing of nonsense, such as this about Penton somehow disagreeing with Cetnar and Ray Franz, will soon push you beyond the pale of a benefit of doubt.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: It is time that you stepped up to the plate as a mediator and offer something substantive about Misplaced Pages policy in view of the large volume of sources and discussion you have had exposure to.

Misplaced Pages cannot function as it is designed to function if articles are held hostage to personal opinion rather than letting the body of published world knowledge speak for itself. Editors are not here to write their own research, by inclusion or omission. Editors are here to express what we find in the world base of published knowledge that is reliable. In this case, secondary source upon secondary source uses Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s published information as reliable. Additionally, not a single solitary published source has been provided disputing the reliability of these sources! Not even the Watchtower organization with its huge publishing capability has challenged the veracity of information provided by Ray Franz or William Cetnar. What are we waiting for, a sign from God? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative. There is no certainty to what these two betrayers offer, especially in view of their personal ambitions and profit motives. Penton, also a betrayer with a profit motive, stated that there is really only one translator of any consequence, and that was Fred Franz. R Franz and Cetnar wrote in agreement. The other names are likely shills. Now, Fred admitted that he was the NWT's editor (current as of 1954 but uncertain beyond). R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple. Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably, but that is exactly what R Franz wrote that he did. So R Franz is the only other one, who by his own admission, worked on the NWT besides Fred Franz. He should be listed too and you can use your source for that. Cetnar exited before R Franz's self-admitted involvement as a translator, so we can understand why he left out R Franz. But both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him? Shilmer admitted their assertions were based on their personal observations which are clearly not in full agreement (even though Henschel should have been within all reasonable assessments). This underscores the unreliability issues with both Cetnar's and R Franz's assertions. And all sources agree on Fred Franz. What Shilmer writes above completely agrees with my position: The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it. It is what I have been maintaining the entire time (except that I have asserted that Fred be listed as Editor and not as a translator, because that is what he admitted to, but I also agree it's a narrow distinction). Ironically, the only two that have ever directly admitted to being involved in assessing and influencing renderings from the original languages to English are Fred Franz and R Franz. Period. I am 100% supportive of listing R Franz as a translator based on his position, responsibility and personal testimony. Oh yes, and Fred Franz too. But no one else (supported by the Watchtower and Penton). Hey Hey! Double-Trouble: now Shilmer can get a legitimate book plugs for both Penton and R Franz. Unless, of course, Shilmer begins arguing that R Franz's testimony should used on account of his unreliability...

The NWT Article is not being held hostage. It is awaiting a break in the deadlock. I do not believe it is the function of the Mediation Cabal to "judge" matters, but rather to provide an avenue for convergence among Editors that have a dispute. Shilmer refuses to accept that Misplaced Pages is not a collection of muck he rakes up and is furious that he is being so thoroughly challenged on solid grounds (the Mediators have said that we both have good points and we both understand the Misplaced Pages policies well enough).. On all other JW pages, Shilmer and his ilk have free reign because no JW will edit them regarding matters of beliefs or practices, as those are made public by the Watchtower organization itself, and apart from that would represent personal opinion. Some have tried to correct factual matters but not doctrinal ones -- for example challenging Shilmer's insistence that "Christianity" is a term owned by Trinitarians and should not be applied to those whose plain focus is following the teachings of The Christ, Jesus -- quite apart from Misplaced Pages's guideline on this foul practice of word ownership. Shilmer is doubly mad because I inferred from R Franz's position responsibility and timing that he likely worked on the translation but would never read R Franz's book and lacked necessary source references to push the point. And then Lo and Behold! Seddon69 supplied the second-source excerpt proving it, and now R Franz is trapped as a self-identified translator of the NWT or we have to admit that R Franz and the second source is unreliable.

Anyway, I would suggest the following addition to the translator's section: "Raymond Franz directly stated that he was involved in reviewing original language texts and offering judgments on NWT renderings, and specifically cited his work on Acts 13:23 as an example." This is supported by R Franz's "Crisis" book and by Marlowe's website article. -- cfrito (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69:

1. Silence from the Watchtower by refraining from verifying or publishing names of NWT translators is not an assertion that Ray Franz’s statement of NWT translators is speculation on his part. Your premise on this point is an equivocation fallacy.

2. Your attempts to have editors/mediators dismiss statements from Ray Franz, William Cetnar and Jim Penton on the basis that these men are “betrayers” and/or “betrayer with a profit motive” is nothing less than ad hominem. More fallacy from you.

3. Your attempt to emphasize Fred Franz in an attempt to suggest other names of NWT Translation Committee members are “shills” is a classic red herring because no published source (not one!) has remotely suggested that membership on the NWT Translation Committee required equal skills or translation abilities from each member. For example, Knorr could have been on the NWT Translation Committee purely as a shaker and mover whereas Fred Franz could have been a member of the same committee primarily for the actual task of translation work. Asserting a red herring into a dispute is fallacy.

4. Why on earth you feel you can assert that Ray Franz was a proximate causer or active participant with the NWT Translation Committee is, apparently, for you to know and everyone else to wonder. There is no evidence that Ray Franz was part of the NWT Translation Committee, as that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about ancillary influences that probably came from hundreds if not thousands of sources. Your statements on this point are just another red herring. It is fallacy.

5. You asked why Cetnar would include Henschel’s name but Ray Franz would omit Henschel’s name. There are several reasons to explain this other than your preferred explanation that the difference amounts to proof of speculation. 1) Since both Cetner and Ray Franz offered their statements as their own firsthand observations and since Cetnar and Ray Franz were at Watchtower headquarters at different times, then it is unavoidable that Cetnar made observations that Ray Franz did not. Hence one explanation is that during Cetnar’s tenure Henschel was actively working with the NWT Translation Committee whereas during Ray Franz’s tenure Henschel was not actively working with the NWT Translation Committee. 2) Another explanation could be that Henschel was active with the NWT Translation Committee the whole time but Ray Franz was unaware of this. Recall that neither Cetnar nor Ray Franz has suggested their lists of NWT committee members is comprehensive. 3) Another explanation is that Henschel was part of the NWT Translation Committee in the 1950s but was not on the NWT Translation Committee from 1965 onward when Ray Franz was at Watchtower headquarters. These and other alternative explanations demonstrate that your premise on this point is nothing less than a false bifurcation. It is fallacy.

6. That you would support including Ray Franz as a NWT translator in the Misplaced Pages article on the NWT demonstrates an extremely poor academic standard. It is ironic that you would take Ray Franz’s word and use it as a source for this strained conclusion of yours yet you so vehemently reject using what Ray Franz word for what he states explicitly! Not only is your conclusion strained beyond the pale of reason, your use of this source screams extreme bias.

7. There is no deadlock when it comes to what sources have to say, and Misplaced Pages policy would have articles express what is published rather than the opinions of editors. The article is being held hostage by an editor’s opinion that he has yet to substantiate with published sources. You have yet to name a single third-party (or biased!) published source in support of your opinions expressed throughout this dispute. Surely even you should be able to realize which between us has been diligent to offer source material.

8. Mediating is inappropriate if it results in a compromise where information is asserted (or omitted) without appropriate source substantiation (or contrary to source substantiation/presentation). Mediators here have no choice but to offer recommendations with a result that Misplaced Pages policies are maintained. These policies do not accept article presentation if that presentation is not as sources assert it. Hence the dilemma of your opinion is that you have yet to offer one shred of published support whereas I have offered layer upon layer of published support.

9. I invite any and all editors to review my continued work on the NWT article (in my sandbox edition). This should reveal my proclivity for including what sources have to say regarding the NWT regardless of whether the view expressed is perceptible as positive or negative by a biased reader. I am not interested in including anything into any Misplaced Pages article that is other than what editors can substantiate from reliable sources.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Seddon Apologies for my slow response. I have several concerns and points that i would like to raise varying from policies to statements made above. Ill start off by going through the most recent comments. These are not to be taken as arguments against or for, or that i am taking sides. I am simply going through points which i feel need to be addressed.

1) Cfrito You state "The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative." You then go on to describe them as "betrayers". I request you refrain from this and try to maintain a Neutral point of view. What problem is there against using the sources that refer to these two. Your view that they made these suggestions for "personal ambitions and profit motives" need to be backed up by sources. In this case it should then be mentioned that JW's feel that it was for that reasoning. I have no problems with stating that if there is proof that that is what is felt. This would then comply with WP:NPOV.

2) Cfrito You state "R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple." I have no problem with stating that R Franz contributed to the revision work so long as it is clear he wasn't on the committee unless a source can be found to support that. You later go on to say "Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably". Please refrain from personal attacks per WP:NPA.

3) Cfrito If "both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him?" then state this in the article. This would comply with "Let the facts speak for themselves" seeWP:NPOV as with the two statements before.

4) Marvin & Cfrito "The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it." This can be stated as fact. As I have stated from the day i took this case anything that cant be proven as fact must clearly be stated as being the beliefs of a certain person and this includes the list. This would comply with WP:OR in that you are not stating assumptions as perceived facts.

5) Cfrito The way Marvin edits on other pages is not at this moment part of this case. I would suggest that if you feel this really is a problem then i would suggest you take that to the Mediation committee as i feel that its a little too big for me to deal with by myself.

6) Marvin Even if there was a statement issued by the watchtower then it would not prevent R Franz statements being included per WP:NPOV.

I hope this is a more thorough response as requested. If i do not reply tonight i will respond as soon as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Thanks for your questions and remarks. In order of your response,

1) Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.

2) I suggest you take another look with your own eyes at what the referenced source actually says. Contrary to what Cfrito asserts, Ray Franz does not suggest he had any responsibility or influence over revisions made to the NWT. Here is a link to the source. When you open it search for the phrase “When I pointed out” and it will take you to the opening sentence Cfrito is basing his claim upon. It will only take a few seconds to review Ray Franz’s remark.

3) Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.

4) It is fact that Fred Franz testified that he was editor of the NWT, and specifically that he was charged to check it for accuracy. Hence, the fact is that Fred testified to this end. Whether his testimony is/was factual is another question. The same can be said of what Ray Franz has said of NWT translators. That is, it is fact that Ray Franz testifies/writes that Knorr, Gangas, Shroeder and Fred Franz were members of the NWT translation committee. (Note regarding Fred Franz: Fred Franz has never testified that he was a member of the NWT translation committee) Otherwise, it is well said that Misplaced Pages articles should present information as the sources present the information.