Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices/Archive 2

message: I have edited this section as follows:
The Conventions are not referred to as "Assemblies," in practice. I have never heard of a District Convention being held in an Assembly Hall, but that doesn't mean it has never happened. There has never been an International Convention held in an Assembly Hall. I edited to show that is not the norm and to segregate the larger Conventions from those events that would normally be held in an Assembly Hall.
I think that either the title of the section should be modified to include "Other Facilities," or the Conventions should be left out of the discussion unless someone can source when an International Convention/District Convention was held in an Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If we are actually talking about the practice of assembling, the title needs to reflect that instead of referncing the buildings such gathering are held in.
I also removed the word "exclusively" from the following sentence as unsourced (and patently untrue): The needed finances come from voluntary contributions made exclusively by Jehovah's Witness members according to each one's means and inclination.
I trust no one has objection to these edits. Can we discuss how to change the title to more accurately reflect the nature of the subheading? Respectfully, Evident 13:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if this fits the definition of Assembly Hall or not, but the Witnesses in Ft. Lauderdale or so bought some stadium or something like that from the government, and supposedly use it for district conventions. I've never been there, and I don't know if a source for this could be found, but I have been told the story of how the purchase went down in pretty good detail, by an elder in the same state.Tommstein 13:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Having just perused the section in question, the title depends on what we want to talk about there. If the goal is the physical buildings, then the current title works, but we will have to remove at least the mention of international conventions, unless someone shows that they are sometimes used for that. If the goal is to talk about the actual gatherings, then the body isn't so bad, but we'd need to change the title instead. Ideally, I think we should have a section talking about the physical buildings, and a different section talking about the actual gatherings (perhaps under the meetings section, or maybe in its own new section). That way we get to talk about both things, more easily and in whatever depth we want.Tommstein 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So noted, and thank you for the clarification. However, that does not address the concern that the topic header is "Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls" and the fact is that larger events cannot use these facilities. If the larger events are to be discussed under this topic, it seems the topic header needs to change for accuracy. I have no problem with changing the header, I just raised the point so discussion could occur on whether it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Evident 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls 

message: The article has a section that needs to be merged and redirected here. Rename first so a merge makes sense based on the article title. :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses]] 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: No. Jehovah's Witnesses reject "situational ethics" by name. Witnesses also condemn the so-called "Christian principle of double effect".
This actually seems a remarkably relevant line of reasoning...
How many religious denomination articles at Wikipedia discuss that denomination's interpretation of lying and evasiveness? I'd guess zero, this being the first. Whether their articles mention it or not, since other Christian religions tolerate evasiveness (and they do, especially in the face of outright persecution), for what ostensibly encyclopedic purpose is this discussed at all in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses?
* Do Witnesses have a more strict or a less strict interpretation of lying than other Christians? Perhaps most importantly: does this new section give an accurate impression of Witness views on lying?
In fact, Witnesses do not tolerate outright lying at all (even in the face of persecution), yet the new section never says that. Indeed, JWs consider lying a 'serious sin' for which a Witness could be disfellowshipped, yet the new section never mentions that.
I'd guess that's more strict than most Christian denominations, yet the new section never mentions that, and gives the opposite impression.
* Do Witnesses have a more strict or a less strict tolerance for evasiveness than other Christians?
While certainly discouraged, a Witness would admittedly never receive judicial discipline merely for being evasive, whether it was with his neighbor, his business associates, or Nazi persecutors. Even then, however, a Witness could lose congregation privileges for incidents which merely have the appearance of wrong! (See JW discipline#Limited "privileges of service".)
I'd guess that's more strict than most Christian denominations, yet the new section never mentions that, and gives the opposite impression.
Again, if all or the overwhelming majority of Christian religions perhaps condemn lying and certainly tolerate evasiveness, why is this notable only for Jehovah's Witnesses? Again, why must only this religion's article explicitly comment on the matter of evasiveness to the questions of a persecutor? 
So, per WP:UNDUE the new section by BlackCab aka LTSally fails based on the ease with which any determined editor could cherrypick sources stating that nearly or literally every religion tolerates evasiveness in the face of persecution.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason for inclusion, I think, was the fact that the chapter on "lying" (whatever you want to call it) was mentioned in Bergman's bibliography book as being one of the few key points of the book mentioned, which he indicated was "excellent", although I really have to wonder about the level of quality required for such an assessment from him, based on my own view of the book. Such inclusion does indicate notability of the subject. I don't know if it is sufficient for inclusion, just indicating what seems to me a possible reason. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AuthorityTam adopts the OTHERSTUFF argument: if other articles don't discuss the ethics of lying in a religious context, neither should this one. It is true that JW publications condemnd lying. That would be a standard Christian ethic, similar to a condemnation of adultery, murder and theft and that wouldn't be notable. I'd guess that other religions don't have a teaching called Theocratic Warfare in which their publications have advocated deceptiveness and evasiveness when the interests of their religion's activities seem threatened. Witnesses do and that's notable. BlackCab (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it might be worth, my own opinion regarding this might be to simply keep a comparatively short one or two sentence summary of the material here, and place the bulk of the relevant content, possibly including the instance when the author said a street "publisher" lied to the author about the author's own background (not knowing that was who he was), in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not presenting the Theocratic Warfare belief as a criticism. It is a notable belief and nothing more. BlackCab (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a subset of what they call 'Theocratic Warfare' is presented, and it does come across as a criticism. (Aside from that, I've seen no evidence that "Jehovah's Witnesses reject "situational ethics" by name".)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: * The Watchtower, September 15, 1974, page 562, "[Use] the Word of God as the guide to what a person should be doing if he is practicing the truth, walking in the light. ...Eph. 4:17-19. The standards of this world, their “situation ethics,” are the result of minds that are in darkness mentally, alienated from the life that belongs to God. [emphasis added]"--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, some of the outside sources which discuss it definitely do so in "critical" fashion. While it is notable as a point of their beliefs, and can be mentioned as such, it probably is a bit more notable as being a point about which the JWs are criticized. That was my basic thinking for the proposal. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the doctrine is not notable. Neither the thread nor the article has thusfar seen any useful "outside sources" which call this a notable doctrine. What seems obvious to most is that what is currently discussed at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Theocratic warfare is nearly identical to the position held by just about every Christian faith. So who is it that seeks to frame and push discussion of this supposed "Theocratic Warfare"? Almost all discussion of so-called "Theocratic Warfare" is among former and anti-JWs, rather than by reputable works. Try it, perform a Google search. I haven't located a single chapter or subheading in any reputable work which discusses this position as though it were unique to JWs, except perhaps in that JWs were and are persecuted to a unique extent (and the topic is intertwined with persecution). Incidentally, since 1950 the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have never treated "theocratic warfare" as a capitalized term, and have only used the term about 60 times in 60 years; by contrast, the less loaded but synonymous term "spiritual warfare" has been used about 240 times. Why did BlackCab aka LTSally choose the former term which JW publications rarely use? Why do editors consistently capitalize "theocratic warfare"? Is the term "theocratic warfare" among those in the back-of-the-book indexes of reputable works on JWs? The answers are telling.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolerating evasiveness is not distinct

message: This article was recently split from Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses; see Splitting the article in that Talk (and an old thread here). Regarding the current name of THIS article... I could find no other article which begins "Practices of...". By contrast, article titles on group practices tend to have names like Spanish practices, Sikh practices, and Buddhist practices.I recommend that his article be renamed Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Any objections or discussion?--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you argument is reasonable.Have changed in this instance..Thank you..humblefool 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is normally a proper noun, as the name of a religious denomination, and it functions here as an adjectival modifier. This presentation is consistent with similar article titles as indicated in User:AuthorityTam's comment above. The name 'Jehovah's Witnesses' does not function here as the simple plural of 'Jehovah's Witness' (being two or more JWS) but as the proper name of an organisation. The other articles mentioned above are not called "Sikhs' practices" or "Buddhists' practices"; similarly, this article title employs the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" (which functions in the singular) as an adjectival modifier of "practices". It is therefore not used here as a possessive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I support keeping it as it is. There is an argument that it is grammatically correct, but in any case it is simpler. BlackCab (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you (M.J.E.)have stated yourself, adjectival modifiers are correctly used on singular nouns. The proper noun 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is a singular noun. It is an organisation. Use of the organisation name here is descriptive, not possessive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I suggest the editors to change the outdated title theocratic warfare to Spiritual warfare. I never heard such a term though I am involved in JW for over 20 years. The main article is on Spiritual warfare. I searched on watchtower library 2009 on all publications. I found only 158 instances of the term Theocratic warfare. And It is occurring only on articles published before 1989. But the term Spiritual warfare is occurring on recent articles and totals about 636 times. The term Holy war is from a 1955 published article. It could be replaced by Spiritual war. Further recent articles in watchtower had criticized the Holy war done by churches. Wikipedia encourages to focus on latest beliefs and not on outdated words. Hope you would consider the updating the title.  Logical Thinker  16:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the section heading. As you indicate, the sources are not recent, however the information has never been repealed (i.e. replaced with 'new light') though the subject is seldom discussed in detail in more recent literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Theocratic warfare title change to Spiritual warfare

message: District conventions for foreign language congregations are routinely held in Assembly Halls.
99.34.28.106 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: New sections go at the bottom of Talk pages. Conventions of any language are routinely held in JW Assembly Halls where such facilities are available. Their being in a 'foreign language' is not particularly relevant. Not all areas (including those with foreign-language congregations) have a JW-owned Assembly Hall.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assembly Halls

message: The cleanup tag was added in August 2010 by sockpuppet Jehonathan who also edited as Matrix356 and others; no further problems have been raised. Are we safe to delete the tag? BlackCab (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, but recommend waiting for other editors to respond also.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: The new Traveling overseers (but Australian English in my section heading :) ) section seems like excessive detail for the scope of this article. I therefore propose:
* that the bulk of the material be moved to a new section at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, under the Branches section, with the existing Units within a branch subsection adapted into the new section as a less abrupt introduction to the topic.
* a Traveling overseers subsection at the end of the Meetings for worship section, with a single paragraph summarising the circuit overseer's visit and a 'See also' link to the new section at the other article.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The material has limited relevance to the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't see that it warrants even a sentence under the "meetings" section. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged the material into the relevant section of the Organizational structure article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travelling overseers 

message: Someone today has tagged the article (albeit in the wrong location) with the warning that it relies on primary sources. I'd make the following four points in suggesting that the use of primary sources in this article is of no concern:
:(a) WP:PRIMARY says that whether primary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense;
:(b) Watch Tower Society publications are a generally reliable source of information on the religion's practices;
:(c) There has been no challenge over the accuracy of any specific claim sourced to a WTS publication' and
:(d) The article does have a good measure of secondary sources as well.
Some comment on this would be welcome, with a view to removing that tag. BlackCab (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Holden, Franz and Penton are all used, as well as Botting (although I don't know that name myself). Seems fine to me. Vyselink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that tag was unwarranted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: I am moving this section from my talk page to here because I feel it is more appropriately discussed here on the articles talk page to allow interested editors to have input into the discussion.  It comes from:
* See User_talk:Willietell#Sources tag etc 
I am posting it in its entirety thus far and am providing this as a heads up so no one thinks I am attempting to use User:BlackCab's signature. I am only copy/pasting it from my talk page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re your addition of the "Fact" tag here: the statement about secular society is part of the quote from Holden's book and needs no further source cited. The reference to closed meetings is also clearly sourced to Franz. Your reference to "non-prescription use (medical use) of addictive drugs" is also confusing, suggesting that medical use of addictive drugs is prohibited. It's clearer the way it is. And the articles have had a long-standing practice of generalising the numbers of languages in which WT publications are published, avoiding the need to update them as they rise and fall. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources tag, etc.