Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 24

message: I consider this article's headline to be misleading. The article is not actually about the 144 000, it is about the leadership of the organization. I think it would do much better if renamed to Jehovah's Witnesses and teaching authority or something. Summer Song 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually not describing a group of people. It deals with the way of leading the organization when it comes to doctrinal matters.Summer Song 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is the term used by JWs to describe who leads the organization in doctrinal matters. So, I think the title is accurate and should be reverted. Dtbrown 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not with you in this. "Faithful Sevant" is a word connected to the 144 000. The article is about the teaching authority and the history of the leadership among JW when it comes to doctrinal matters. It is not describing the 144 000 or any other group. The article is about a broad matter. The Faithful Servant are just the ones who currently hold the teaching authority. Summer Song 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faithful and Discreet Slave 

message: Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 
24.87.87.211 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

message: Appearently, the section about the history is almost identical with the in depth article. I think that the section would do better if made shorter. Summer Song 08:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article desperatly needs to be split up, it is WAY too long (97 KB) compared to the recommened maximum of 32 KB. I belive the Believes and practises section could be cut down a bit! -- Snailwalker | talk 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I intend to start augmenting the side "History" article very soon so that they will no longer be identical. Dtbrown 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are many differences between the main "History" article and the side "History" article. I'm working on developing the side "History" article in sandbox. Dtbrown 13:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats good, but honestly, the main History is too long. The main article must be kept shorter.Summer Song 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few months ago there were complaints the main History section did not have enough substance. As it stands, the main History section is a conflation and abridgement of two former sections. Why "must" the article be kept shorter? Dtbrown 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most complaints have been made about the length of the article. Why should not the history section be kept shorter and the information be moved to the history article? Summer Song 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the history/eschatology section on the main page is a bare bones approach. There is so much more than could be said and should be said on the side articles. But, why pick on the history/eschatology section? If anything, the beliefs and practices section could be shortened and moved to side pages, IMO. 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The length of the article - again 

message: "They have been instrumental in establishing religious freedoms in various countries." THis is a vague statement that should only stay in if there are good sources
:Introductory paragraphs needn't have sources if the assertations are expounded upon elsewhere in the article on in the article series.  In this instance, see Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses for some examples that support this statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source ?????

message: While I certainly understand the effort to not be repetitive, I would also like to point out there is an ease of reading goal too. For someone who visits the page and overlooks that they are reading the "Beliefs" section it would most likely make the question the entire article's NPOV to read the statement "Jehovah's Witness are the one true religion." It certainly sounded that it was written by someone with that belief, not just someone trying to keep repetition down. I personally think that in order to benefit the greatest numbers of readers (and not have them dismiss the article) the clarification that is it their belief be left within that sentence. I did not notice anywhere else that clarification was needed.  JayM 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly appreciate what you're saying. This is a difficult question in my opinion. For instance the opening line "The entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God." could be seen as pov. Should it not read, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God."? If one were to do that, you would have to jam qualifiers everywhere. I wanted a solution which would avoid repeating one's self over and over again. Should we really be concerned about the pov opinion of readers who don't read at least that section sequentially? Readability concerns are valid, and I admit that one sentence does read awkwardly. Any ideas? joshbuddy 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: An addendum, looking at other belief sections, many have used the first sentence of each piece to say "such-and-such believe..." I think this is reasonable. Someone feel like altering the first sentence of each section to reflect that? (If everyone likes the idea) joshbuddy 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which way to go. For whatever reason it was just that one particular statement that felt antagonistic to someone else reading the article. For some reason I did not feel that another person would be put off by the other statements as much as the one true religion statement. Hrmph. If others agree in adding the "JW's believe" opening statement, then I can do it if no one else wants to. But I'm also good on just leaving the belief qualifier in there for only the one true religion statement. JayM 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its interesting that that one statements provokes such a visceral reaction. I think it would be arbitrary if we left the qualifier in on that one statement, but left it off everywhere else. I think either the qualifier needs to removed and the preamble for beliefs expanded, or it needs to be added everywhere. joshbuddy 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, do you like the new beliefs section? It took me awhile to do, haven't really heard if anyone likes it or not. joshbuddy 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks accurate and good to me, I appreciated the presentation quite a bit. It has been a while though, while I was raised as a JW and was bapitized in '94, I've since changed my mind on religion and am now much more Zen in my approach to life. If no one else has a comment, then I'd say removal of the qualifier for the one statement and an expansion of the starting Beliefs section would be a very good thing. JayM 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say to that, go nuts. I look forward to seeing your change. joshbuddy 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit looks just perfect to me! Thanks for the conversation and agreement! JayM 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked to a couple of admins in irc, and they suggested something along these lines. Seperate out the critical content from the beliefs so that it only reflects JW beliefs. Then create a section called Critical View of Beliefs and Practices, and add in that data. They felt the disclaimer was unneeded as the context make it clear. joshbuddy 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. Whether the disclaimer is needed or not I personally feel that it makes the article much more accomodating to the reader. Your choice however, as you are the one interested in maintaining the article. Enjoy yourself and feel free to archive this section, I promise not to poke my nose in your article again. I do thank you for considering someone elses opinion. JayM 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still very willing to consider your opinion on this. I'm hardly married to the current way its done. How would you go about writing the beliefs section in such a way as to not incur too much repetition? Perhaps take a smaller section and re-write it. Hey, if its better, who am I to oppose it? My concern was with having to constantly restate over and over that this is a JW belief. joshbuddytalk 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs and Clarification Within 

message: I don't understand this? I thought the Nazi persecution was notable enough for mention within the lead-in. It was taken from the governments section. How is it "propaganda"? joshbuddy 16:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia articles on Jews and Homosexuals do not mention Nazis in their introductory paragraphs. While the Nazi mistreatment of Witnesses should indeed feature in the article, it doesn't really belong in the introduction, and its presence there could be seen as a bit propaganda-ish.--Jeffro77 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Jews and Homosexuals are deeper topics, with far more ground to cover. While I agree it is somewhat propaganda-ish, the lead in is supposed to summarize the article. If you can put in a balancing point or reword it (from the article) then it should be fine. joshbuddytalk 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazi persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is also less known. I think that is one reason it deserves mention in the introduction. Dtbrown 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What is unique and notable is that nearly all Witnesses in Germany could have easily escaped the fate assigned to them by Nazi ideology by nominally denouncing their faith -- and not get caught praticing it -- but chose to refuse to compromise in any way. Few others had any chance at all of escaping the Nazi plan. - CobaltBlueTony 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what that bit of pro-Witness trivia has to do with whether mention of Nazis belongs in the introduction. The lead-in should contain general information about Witnesses, not details about a specific period of time that is not distinctly related to their formation or beliefs.--Jeffro77 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still fail to see why this is an issue. It is notable and worthy of inclusion in the introduction, IMO. Dtbrown 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Nazi persecution not notable enough for lead in? 

message: In light of Josh's retrieval of that rehash discussion, perhaps we could put forth the effort to maintain a permanent section of the consensus of editors for past issues, which would link to specific sections in the archived discussion pages.  This way, it would serve as kind of a FAQ for someone who wanted to bring up a point that had already been decided on.  They could then read the discussion to determine if their point had already been discussed before deciding to bring it up again. And we certainly wouldn't discourage them from discussing pervious point as tehy may have new ideas or perspectives; we would simply be asking them to review our progress beforehand.
Thoughts?
CobaltBlueTony 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an intelligent idea.George 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header/FAQ section for talk page? 

message: The article states that Jehovah's Witnesses publish their literature in 410 languages. There is no citation for this figure, and even with a citation, the figure is still misleading. Not to diminish their publishing efforts, but it should not be implied that all of their literature is available in that number of languages, since many of them are only represented by a very small amount of available literature.--Jeffro77 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps stating that they "publish literature in 410 languages" is less likely to imply what you see, than they "publish their literature," which does kinda suggest the whole body of work, as opposed to selected material. - CobaltBlueTony 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to qualify it with something like, "much of their literature is published in x languages, while a small selection of literature is available in y languages." Any thoughts?--Jeffro77 13:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "They currently publish literature in up to 410 languages." The problem with "x" is that there really is no "x", while at the moment "y" may be definite, it is likely to change more than once this year as well.George 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publishing Languages

message: In the sentence "Knorr's Vice-President Frederick William Franz became the leading theologian," I have reservations about the usage of the word "theologian."  I'm not even sure what it is about its usage here, but something about it rubs me the wrong way.  Does anyone else have thoughts on this? - CobaltBlueTony 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very common term to describe his function. I can understand from a JW perspective why the word would bother you, but having said that, from a secularist perspective I believe its quite correct. joshbuddytalk 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theologian 

message: The following quote needs a source. Also it seems a consensus on where to put it is needed.
"The Jehovah's Witnesses are often at odds with medical and medicolegal doctrine because of their no-transfusion stance. For example, throughout Australia there is legislation allowing for children (those under 18) to receive blood transfusion without the consent of the child or his/her parents, if a doctor considers it to be necessary."
Ansell 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for australian government legislation quote needed 

message: POV forking is not NPOV. Why are criticism section filled with non criticism such as gambling. Why are there nearly three different sections dealing with critics? Why crticism of JW has been forked out to "two" sister articles? Why theological criticism of JW linked to persecution of JW, covertly implying that all critics of JW are invalid or unjust. And where is the section of prophecies made by early JW, which didn't turn out to be true? FWBOarticle
:By all means, go ahead and clean up something in the criticisms section that isn't satisfactory. I threw it together very hastily, with the intent it would be refined and expanded. I think both the first section of the article, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses all adequately cover their "false prophesies". joshbuddytalk 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come i do not see any "Critical views on Beliefs and Practices" on any other article about religion? Parts of this article are becoming biased. CST 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV forking 

message: Could someone else have a look at the second set of three reverts that this user has made to this page, as well as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah's Witnesses controversy. They are not with any communication. He simply comes onto the page and reverts to a previous version. Ansell 03:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the gist of what Naturtrina was doing to the lead in text. joshbuddytalk 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know if you have to restore the consensus gist of the first paragraph again, but due to 3RR on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures the user has been blocked for 24 hrs. So you wont have huge reverts to ancient versions for a little while. Hopefully they will participate here to explain themselves and we can start integrating their ideas into a consensus. Ansell 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone should checkuser the guy, it's likely he is, or is affiliated with, the indefinately banned user:Tommstein or user:Central.  Duffer 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that somewhat unlikely. Naturtrina seems to be advocating a more pro-bible student tone in the article. joshbuddytalk 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are inconsistencies for supporting either assumption regarding the user's motivations/ possible true identity.  No need to treat differently than any other POV editor: assist editor to learn to align to NPOV, or continue to revert edits based on NPOV standards as we (meaning you) have been doing. - CobaltBlueTony 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering, if 62.128.202.55 is a friend of Naturtinas? Dtbrown 01:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  for more information about this. Ansell 01:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by [[User:Naturtrina|Naturtrina]]

message: I for one, am thankful for the information age - when people can look at everything for themselves. There are many parts of Wikipedia that are a little slanted, but this article I believe has been done justice. Media bias is rampant - people with agendas for this and that. I'm truely worried about the time when all this is rewritten by those in control - those rewritting history. Defend history, and words - newspeak of 1984 is everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.153.83.138 (talk • contribs) .
:Interesting at least. Ansell 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Love of Wisdom

message: It seems that both the edited number and the previous one were wrong.  The Library of Congress online catalog lists the ISBN here: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=In+Search+of+Christian+freedom&Search_Code=TALL&PID=6935&SEQ=20060421100257&CNT=25&HIST=1 - CobaltBlueTony 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN of "In Search of Christian Freedom" 

message: I've added in the side article, and I'd really like to see the section (especially the section on disfellowshipping) greatly reduced and cleaned up. If anyone feels like doing that, please do. I will take a stab later if no one gets to it. And content can be preserved in the side article now, so I believe it should all be good. joshbuddytalk 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congregational discipline section 

message: Hot of the Uncyclopedia.org press:
UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted
If you can't laugh about yourself, who can you laugh about? :) Hope you all enjoy.Travb 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted

message: I see over 150 footnotes.  Perhaps an editor/editors added them all after being tagged in response?  Whatever the case, I think that the article is very well-sourced and am removing that tag.  Good job, whoever! Novel-Technology 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced?

message: This article lists 1873 and 1874 as dates for the end of the world according to the Adventists. Yet the page on Adventists says 1844. I'm confused... 24.4.112.227 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventists? 

message: Is this the "most referenced article ever to appear on Wikipedia"? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Someone deleted the fact that Witnesses' Field Service is self-reported. Why should that fact be hidden?--Jeffro77 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Hidden' is an adjective meaning 'obscured from view' or 'unrevealed'. Almost all Witnesses at least know of someone who has inflated their hours, but I'm willing to leave it out because I can't reference it, because I don't know of anyone who's bothered to write it anywhere 'official'. On the other point though (self-reporting) and more generally, people are a bit quick on this article to just delete stuff they don't like, even when they know very well that not only is the comment true, but usually verifiable as well.--Jeffro77 02:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field Service self-reported

message: This article has gone citation crazy! If any small point is left uncited, it is often deleted (especially if it is viewed by some as unfavourable), rather than simply tagging it for needing a citation (e.g., ). There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that make reference to social concepts that have no formally published citation (see Leet, Calling Fives etc.), so a citation is not required for every single little thing, particularly on behaviour within a sub-culture that is known to be true, but not necessarily published anywhere. Obviously if something is plainly vandalism, it should be removed, but please try to show some discernment.--Jeffro77 08:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations