Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 25

message: The box on the left of the page that starts "Part of the series on Jehovah's Witnesses", is a nice touch as it makes the presentation more uniform with the style of other Wikipedia religious articles. But I'm wondering...why is there a section in that box for "Ex-Members & Critics"? The reason I ask this, is because NO OTHER religious article (that I looked up) on Wikipedia has anything like that in their box. Therefore, though it's not a neutrality problem directly, it is obviously there to swing people towards a biased view against Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore takes a bit away from the informativeness of the series of articles.
Ask yourself...there are a lot of critics and ex-members of Islam, so why aren't some of them listed on the Islam page's box? Why aren't there any for Catholocism or Mormonism? They all have their critics and ex-members. What's the point of listing them? They don't actually have anything to do with what Catholocism, Mormonism, or Islam are about.
This article on JW's is littered with more anti-JW thoughts than any of the religious articles I just mentioned have anti thoughts about themselves. So, are we being more honest here or more biased and directing away from the facts and straight informative nature of what a Wikipedia article should be?
Give it some thought.
--Ando por Fe 00:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header Box 

message: I say it's time that we require editors to the JW articles be registered. What do others think? Dtbrown 05:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The recent spate of vandalism with the 'False Prophecies' rubbish is just annoying.--Jeffro77 07:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It would probably help a lot. You guys have been doing a lot of work reverting, I just downloaded vandalproof and will be playing with it in the sandbox. George 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping Vandalism 

message: It has been contended that a free lottery is not gambling. However, in most jurisdictions, such competitions require permits from the same legislative bodies that regulate lotteries which are not free. Since entering such a free lottery still diminishes the chance of any other individual winning, it could still be seen as contributing to the loss of a potential prize for others, and therefore could be seen as a form of gambling. Additionally, including the reference in the article clarifies what is and is not allowed for Witnesses to get involved in.--Jeffro77 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gambling and free lotteries

message: I find it strange that the criticims of field service listed are only those of Franz when the majority of criticisms about JW's and their evangelizing stem from other sources and have more to do with irritation at being disturbed. IF I can rework this without getting attacked I will give it a try but not until after the weekend.George 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have other sources of criticism, by all means include them. (Provided they are good sources of course) I'm not really sure what a large minority is, or why you posted the link to biblegateway. After all, this is Ray Franz's criticism. joshbuddytalk 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a large minority would be, say, 20%, as compared to a small minority, which would be, say, 1%. (These figures are illustrative and do not reflect the actual proportions of translations considered.)
In more than 30% of the cases the translations listed at BG use "house to house". THree use the expression "in every house" which takes the average above 50%. It makes Franz a critic of 50% of bible translators.George 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism - field service

message: I'm thinking that an effective way to reduce this content would be to basically keep the more outstanding points, and otherwise boil down JW beliefs to a single paragraph. I think the most interesting points of belief are blood, preaching, and shunning. Any comments? joshbuddytalk 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of beliefs 

message: Anyone else having problems signing in on the main JW page? I'm signed in everywhere else but on the main page? Dtbrown 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing in 

message: User pastorrussell,
Could you cite the exact words for your source that Russell's Will forbid the publication of new material after his death? What would the function of the editorial committee be if it could not oversee the publication of new material? Dtbrown 06:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pastor Russell had numerous articles and written discourses that had never been published.  It was his request that these be used and published in the pages of the Watch Tower.  The editorial committee was formed to both write and examine submitted articles to the Tower, as well as follow Russell's wishes outlined in the Will. "As the Society has already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree..."  The letter of his Will, as well as the spirit, made it clear that other than the Watch Tower magazine, OTQ tracts, the six volumes and Tabernacle Shadows, nothing else was to be published.  His efforts and intent were to prevent the establishment of an organized religion that would press their will upon others.  Pastorrussell 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not here to debate.  I'm here to correct factual errors that have to do with CT Russell and the Bible Students which are parts of the JWs early history, as well as make available the links to original source documents from the OFFICIAL WEBSITE.  If you don't think what I've said is correct, then please go to the library and do some research to verify it for yourself.  The prohibition to print new material was clear to all, and in order for Rutherford to go around it he had to declare parts of the Will illegal, and dismiss four Board members he didn't like.  Pastorrussell 07:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Pastorrussell's talk page reveals that he still need to learn how to work here on Wikipedia.  He doesn't even represent the estate of Russell, so how exactly is his information "official"?  What needs to be determined is if his presentation of "the facts" is accepted by other non-JW Bible student descendents. If they agree, that can add to the reputableness of his claiming to represent a documented segment of people. - CobaltBlueTony 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "As the Society has already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree..."  That statement made it a legal requirement, and in order to go around it so as to publish new material, Rutherford had to have that clause declared illegal.  Pastorrussell 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your understanding is wrong, the reference taken out of context, and contradictory of the recorded historical facts.  Doing some unbiased research might help.  71.74.198.181 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell's Will Forbid the Publication of New Material After His Death? 

message: Currently we have:
Jehovah's Witnesses is an international religion that claims to be the restoration of first-century Christianity.
I understand the argument for "is" instead of "are" but it sure sounds odd. Could we perhaps have:
Jehovah's Witnesses is the name of an international religion... 
or something similar? Dtbrown 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Jeffro changed it to something a little saner sounding? By all means just go do it, no one will get upset if you make it read well. joshbuddytalk 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made the current edit to fix the previous incorrect grammar as a concession after someone reverted my previous edit, which clarified that the organisation (singular) and its members (plural) are both ambiguously referred to as 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. If you can make it sound better and still be grammatically correct, go for it. I think that my earlier edit, indicating that the name is applied both to the organisation and to its members, would be the most appropriate phrasing.--Jeffro77 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I gotta agree with Josh it is both grammatically incorrect and awkward to a JW. George 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Josh also. However, I think we need to remove the "The". It's not normal usage among JWs to refer to themselves that way. I'll remove it for now. What is the consensus of the editors? Do we follow a strict grammatical construction or do we follow common usage among JWs? Dtbrown 23:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an internation religion" is NOT correct grammar. If the religion's rules were determined collectively by all of its members, it could be grammatically correct, at a stretch. However because the religion's doctrines are determined by a select body, and because the name functions in the singular as the name of an organisation, it is not at all appropriate to use a plural verb when referring to 'Jehovah's Witnesses' as an organisation.--Jeffro77 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do other editors think? Dtbrown 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an internation[al] religion"...? - CobaltBlueTony 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a strictly logic-based approach, such a phrase does not indicate what that "international religion" is called, of which "Jehovah's Witnesses" are members. The article should not maintain the ambiguity caused by the Witnesses' dual usage of the term for both the organisation and its members. (Is anyone aware of another religion that employs similar ambiguity?)--Jeffro77 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone asked 'do we have to make a big deal of this?' No, it doesn't have to be a big deal at all. Why is there such a push to leave it grammatically incorrect?? As far as being an informative article goes, it should recognise the ambiguity in the Witnesses' use of the term.--Jeffro77 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that we should recognize the customary usage employed by JWs. If the article should make a point on this (and I don't really think we should) it would belong buried in a footnote, not in the opening line of the article. Dtbrown 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Ambiguous use' is not the intent, nor will you find any documentation using that suggestive phrasing.  A Witness knows he/she is to say "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "I am a Jehovah's Witness," but colloquial usage all around us tends to make it easier to simply accept others' incorrect grammar, or even use it him/herself.  Someone who is a member of the Catholic Church can be said to be "a Catholic," but some Catholics might prefer to be called "Catholic" as both an adjective (which helps define them from their perpective) and a name of a religion.  Similarly, Witnesses' meaning of their own name is meant to convey a thought or idea about who they define themselves to be.  It is collective and indicates perceived possession by Jehovah of them. - CobaltBlueTony 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really sure what you're driving at with "suggestive phrasing"; it sounds like trying to defend something that isn't even under attack. It isn't 'suggestive' of anything except the plain fact of ambiguity. It is a simple fact that the plural form of JW members is the same as the name of the organisation, and this is an ambiguous term that is not the case with most religions in general. (When is the Catholic Church ever referred to as simply "Catholic". They never say "I'm a member of Catholic"? Reference to colloquial adjectival forms is not even relevant in the discussion.) Additionally, "colloquial usage" is not what defines what is suitable for an introductory paragraph in an encyclopaedia. The opening sentence currently indicates that Jehovah's Witnesses are people who are of an unnamed religion.--Jeffro77 10:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is ambiguous?  They are Jehovah's Witnesses.  He/she is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.  It is meant to be used in a grammatically correct manner. I've never heard anyone say "I'm a member of the Catholic Church."  The usage is much more commonly, "I'm Catholic."  Even, "I'm Buddhist," or "I'm a Buddhist", rarely if at all "I'm a member of the Buddhist faith." If it's membership you wish to describe, then they "are members of an international religion collectively known as Jehovah's Witnesses".  Institutional nomenclature is not part of their heritage.  Previously, they called themselves "Bible Students," another institution-less group. - CobaltBlueTony 15:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be mistaken. Obviously there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the fact that 'publishers' of Jehovah's Witnesses distribute literature published by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope we are not discussing whether the religion has a name.  Surely everyone agrees that the religion itself is called Jehovah's Witnesses.  Then clearly the phrase Jehovah's Witnesses is ambiguous.  It could refer to the religion (the set of beliefs, etc.); or to the institution, with its Governing Body, etc., or to the indivituals who hold those beliefs; or to the individuals accepted by the institution (as it does in the first sentence currently).  Now, the opening sentence of an article should say what X is (in the singular), not what Xs are (in the plural).  In other words, this article should begin "Jehovah's Witnesses is...", or should be titled "Jehovah's Witness" and begin "A Jehovah's Witness is any...".  The latter would be analogous to article about "Catholic" or "Hindu", which do exist, or an article about "Buddhist" or "Wiccan", which do not.  It is conventional to have an article about a group itself (described as a noun); an article about its members (an adjective) is optional.  There are articles about "Buddhism", "Abolitionism", "Communism", etc.  If we agree that the religion in question is called Jehovah's Witnesses, then the first sentence should begin "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion whose members believe it is the ...". And perhaps an additional sentence could be "A Jehovah's Witness is any member of the religion.".  -Pgan002 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The name "Jehovah's Witness" functions as a proper noun (unlike 'John's car' in the technically inaccurate analogy), identifying a member of the religious group, "Jehovah's Witnesses", regardless of the meaning of the individual words. In view of that (and in the interests of avoiding wordy prose) it is correct to say "a Jehovah's Witness". Further, when referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses" as an organization, it is proper to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is", because the name of the organization functions in the singular. However, when referring to a group of members of the religion, it is proper to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are".--Jeffro77 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: So what is the resolution on this? Pastorrussell, are you satisfied with the explanations given so far? I haven't seen you make any recent changes to History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you going to add links to the individual publications in a footnote? I welcome your input. joshbuddytalk 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the history needs to be abbreviated, as you have done.  However, because the history is in fact mentioned, there should be appropriate links to the pertinent documents.  Although there were over a dozen going back and forth, there should be present in the footnotes links to both the Harvest Siftings booklets, and the two main dissenting works, Light After Darkness, and Facts for Shareholders.  Original document scans are available at Pastor-Russell.com, and it would be more logical to use those rather than to link to a private website that only uses the HTML text.  I would like to link to those four in the footnotes, but don't want to be ganged up on again, so will leave it to you to do it.  Pastorrussell 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't get ganged up on. Go ahead and make the change. You've been very patient with explaining your thinking, and I personally appreciate that. joshbuddytalk 02:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I've added the direct links to the source document PDFs in a footnote.  I was also able to remove one redundant sentence in the summary.  The facts about the Board members was a little twisted up.  Pastorrussell 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally appreciate the work that Pastorrussell has done in that section and feel that the section needs more work.  Repeated incremental changes have built up to the point that the first section of the paragraph is a monstrosity and the whole segment could use to be retooled.  That said, I'm probably going to have to violate WP:BOLD and pass on this oppurtunity to contribute on the grounds that I'm a coward who dislikes flame-baths and reworking large sections of controversial articles tends to get one roasted.  --Vengeful Cynic 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be very happy to further abbreviate the section, but only with the consent of others.  Attempts in the past have been met with strict opposition by a few.  Pastorrussell 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on 1916-1942 history section 

message: It is misleading to state on the discussion page that a peer review has occurred, as the archived 'peer review' contains only the request there for. There is no evidence that it has been peer reviewed, and no one at all left any comments following the request for peer review. I am therefore removing the template.--Jeffro77 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Did it fail because Cestus said no?  That's like a Nazi voting on a Jewish issue..  Duffer 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC Failed?

message: There has been much talk about external links and what is an appropriate link. At  we find the following 4 points. 1)Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? 2)Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site 3)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. 4)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material. In light of that, are sites such as Freeminds apporiate links either in the article or at the bottom page? Ideas and thoughts please. The following is from freeminds homepage, "This is a religion of specific psychiatric tastes. It requires a peculiar sort of neurotic scheme in the personality of those who will become a part of it and a defender of its insanity in the face of constant reproofs of its genuine claims to supernatural authenticity." "psychiatric, neurotic, insanity" seems to be distasteful and perhaps hateful. Emphasis added Johanneum 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this directive from the "External Links" guide you cited above gives us the answer: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Freeminds.org is perhaps the most prominent critical resource on Jehovah's Witnesses on the internet. Due to this status it deserves to be listed here. It should not be given undue weight, however. Dtbrown 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Does this website/group solicit the professional opinion or commentary of experts on psychological/psychiatric issues inferred by such inflammatory statements?  Perhaps information from freeminds regarding this type of information would be better sourced directly from such experts if they indeed corroborate or acknowledge the substance of this assessment, removing the notion of bias. - CobaltBlueTony 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify. I'm not supporting the statements cited. This is, however, a "prominent site" relating to the subject at hand. We should trust the users to judge its merits. Dtbrown 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  A google search reveals that Freeminds doesn't even show up on the first two pages (except for the pay ads). These  critical websites do and are outside the xjw links which dominate the referneces in these articles. The majority of criticism which exists about JW's is not from xjw's.George 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting point George!  Freeminds certainty is not the "official" web page about JW's and it is far from "neutral" too. It just is hard for me to see words such as: "psychiatric, neurotic, insanity" and then use it as a link that should (according to policy): "contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article."  Johanneum 03:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how does a google search identify what site is a "prominent site" or not? I missed where Wikipedia says that only neutral or positive sites can be mentioned. Dtbrown 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?"   and  "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article."  Taken from:Wikipedia:External links Johanneum 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johanneum, there is not just one point of view regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. So, we are not restricted to neutral links. So, this from the same page you cited would apply: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)" I can understand how you may be offended by the description given (which is just a small part of the site), but it is one critical opinion. The rest of the site gives a rather comprehensive critical evaluation which deserves to be noted for our users. Aside from the citation which you've given are there other problems you have with the site? Dtbrown 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think the Hitler or Nazi party comparison is apt. If there's a serious suggestion of removing the link I think the entire site would need review. We should not remove a link just based on a cursory glance at the home page. Dtbrown 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I said the neutral sites mostly ignore xjw sites, and CARM is not neutral. however Carm isthe most highly ranked website that is anti JW and if it referneces 'freeminds' then that might be good enough. We have statements in these articles that JW's have been opposed by governments and religions but nearly all the criticism mentioned is from XJW's and much of their criticism has been ignored or even refuted by the neutral webistes I mentioned earlier. Please diffenentiate the two groups. George 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't know what you mean by showing courtesy. I have not edited anything, I have merely joined in a discussion and brought forth my views and research. You cannot say that somethng will happen if you write these groups. I suppose you would need to actually do it.George 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably should apologize for my remark. You were right to express your views. However, I don't think there are any really "neutral" sites regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Some may be less critical or positive than others but I don't think any are really neutral. I know from personal experience that freeminds.org is one of the most "prominent" critical sites and I've not read any criticisms of the site except from Witnesses. Dtbrown 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check these resources I view as neutral. I think a lesson can be taken from these as to language in the articles.George 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the first one is positive. The second one is negative. The third is harder to catergorize. Dtbrown 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links

message: There should be a caption under the picture of the tetragrammaton (in "Overview"); it is just kind of hanging there. I tried to put one in but for some reason it didn't work (image too small?) BenC7 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetragrammaton 

message: A recent stint of identical edits by multiple IPs all work out to the same provider according to arin.net/whois: Illinois Century Network, which is a state-owned backbone:"The Illinois Century Network (ICN) is a telecommunications backbone providing high speed access to data, video, and audio communication in schools and libraries, at colleges and universities, to public libraries and museums, and for local government and state agencies."I will continue to revert, and would like others' assistance in doing so, so that I do not face a WP:3RR violation.  Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes little sense to put up editing protection while a peer review is occurring. I will revert if I see any obvious ones, but I am usually beaten to it. BenC7 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple IP edits 

message: I am echoing this comment to both Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses and Talk:Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
Let me preface this by saying that I am neither a JW nor a Wiki hotshot.
I recently added a section to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses.  Looking at the Talk page there, I noted some discussion/disagreement about organization of the JW pages.  That struck a chord with me, as I was having a problem finding my way around that particular maze also.  In fact, starting from Jehovah%27s_Witnesses, I have been unable to find my way to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses.
Looking at Tambayan_Philippines, I noted a comment: "The History of the Philippines article is 80KB and it should be split into smaller articles, with the main article trimmed down to about 32KB and only giving the important details. For example, see how History of the United States gives an overview, and how it has eleven subarticles that go into detail about specific periods. [...]".  
I looked at the History of the United States page, and the organization there struck me as well done and easy to follow.  FWIW, I suggest implementing a similar sort of organization for the JW pages. -- Boracay Bill
:Whatever makes things clearer and easier for people to use. BenC7 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of JW pages

message: George,
Does my last edit take into account your objection? The TIME article does say:
"For one thing, their interpretation of Biblical chronology reveals that Adam and Eve were created in the autumn of 4026 BC or 5,994 years ago. Linking 6,000 years to the six days of God's creation, they believe it fitting that there be a sabbath-like rest thereafter, beginning in 1975--though Witnesses cautiously avoid a flat prediction linked to that year."
So, the article is discussing what the Witnesses' publications were discussing at that time. Dtbrown 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your objection to the Time magazine article George. Is it not a fair representation of what the JWs believed at the time? Do you believe that the article is biased? joshbuddy, talk 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how who hosts the scan of the article reflects on the content of the article itself. Its a very valuable and interesting article because it represents an external POV on the Witnesses. It should absolutely be included in the article (if it can be made to be useful in someway) Are you claiming that Time didn't research their article well? I can't really see how more references hurt us, especially a reference of such value. Its unique in that we don't have a lot of external POV's on JWs within the article. joshbuddy, talk 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just another note, they are reporting on the assembly, aren't they? joshbuddy, talk 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the quote in that article, "...though Witnesses cautiously avoid a flat prediction linked to that year." - CobaltBlueTony 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a vote. :) I still am curious about your objections. joshbuddy, talk 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't voting either; just commenting on the article should it remain/be included. - CobaltBlueTony 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation from Time magazine 

message: This section is in need of some real love. It needs to summarize the points contained in the articles that are supposedly its main articles. I know some of these sub-articles aren't very clean, but we should still make an effort to clean it all up, and try and bring this section in line with the guidelines. Though, don't let that prevent you from fixing those sub-articles. joshbuddy, talk 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page is undergoing extensive revision. Might be better to wait a while for that aspect of it. BenC7 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy and opposition" section 

message: I can agree with joshbuddy that this info probably does not belong in the lead:
"Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided."--"Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions" from Official Website: http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm accessed August 2, 2006
but I feel it needs to be noted somewhere. Suggestions? Dtbrown 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the that such a statement is verifiably untrue? - CobaltBlueTony 20:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Might I suggest self-examination, instead of finger-pointing?  If you were really my brother and really concerned about me, you would not be approaching me openly in this forum.  This is an academic resource, and it is my intention to preserve the accuracy of these article until it becomes ill-advised. - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Independent corroboration of what we believe is available in secular sources.  Your technical status within the congregation notwithstanding, your true affiliations seem contradictory to your claims. - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To the contrary, I am denying it because it is not true.  Witnesses often have in their libraries (in the branches, congregations, and personal libraries) material which may speak unfavorably of Witnesses and/or their beliefs, including material which may be considered apostate in context. It is not the research which separates a person from the congregations; it's what they do with what they read that propels them towards an unfavorable status... or not. Certainly, though, the average Witness is not encouraged to do so.  Would you need to read every presentation of Nazism and neo-Nazism to gain an understanding of the subject?  Certainly, an individual uses his or her own standards, loyalties, conscience and concerns to determine which material they are willing to read, to what extent, and how they intend to perceive the soruce(s) of such information. - CobaltBlueTony 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are mistaken.  This article exists because of consensual agreements by Witness and non-Witness editors alike.  Extremists (from both sides) are not permitted to color the articles too much in any one direction.  In fact, if no editor from any camp of opinion likes it, then it's probably the best chance we have of reaching Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy.  And I highly doubt you could add anything that hasn't already been included by much more hostile and dedicatedly vehement forces than you.  Alot of it was rejected by non-Witness editors.  Witness editors have to follow the rules here just like anyone else. - CobaltBlueTony 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluntary disassociation--where to put info? 

message: Does anyone else have problems reading the references after #35? Mine seems all garbled. Dtbrown 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, same. Might want to report it to an admin. BenC7 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it fixed. I don't know if what I removed is anything important. If so, perhaps it can be re-inserted, if necessary. Dtbrown 08:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References problems? 

message: Is the new paragraph on blood notable enough for inclusion? George 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote thus: The first half, about the development of bloodless surgery techniques, belongs more in the JWs and blood article. The second half, about collaboration to provide information, is not notable. BenC7 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there some merit to the ideas involved but it needs more work, IMO. The way the paragraph stands now it could give the impression that the medical community is siding with Jehovah's Witnesses on the question of blood. Generally speaking, the medical community is more accomodating of Witnesses than 30 or 40 years ago. My personal physician in Phoenix, AZ many years ago was the doctor most Witnesses went to because he'd accomodate them on blood. He was even quoted in Awake! because of his efforts. I asked him soon after during an appointment I had with him if he thought using blood under appropriate circumstances was bad medicine. He was startled by my question. He explained he was just trying to help the Witnesses but that if a patient of his wanted blood and it was the appropriate treatment he would order it and that sometimes blood was the only treatment that would prevent death. Perhaps adding words like: "To accomodate Witness patients..." would help clarify things. I'd like to see a few more edits before I'd vote on this one. Dtbrown
Don't forget that voting is evil. :) joshbuddy, talk 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weigh in

message: http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/wtm.pdf - for when someone take my link outta the main page.
masonic bastards!!
: Indymedia and anti-Masonry. What a delightful combination of unreliable sources and idiotic tinfoil-hat-craziness. Unigolyn 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JW & Freemasonry proof

message: The article needs to be condensed and edited quite a bit. The whole section on Jesus' cross is overlong, rambling, and throughly unsuited for an encyclopedia article. Unigolyn 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the one sentence on the cross? BenC7 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. You were referring to a previous edit. Apologies. BenC7 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible sections 

message: This paragraph keeps on getting reverted to the lead:
Jehovah's Witnesses have been mainly focused with the presence of Jesus Christ in the year 1914, as is taught by their doctrine and publications. The initial date was thought to have been 1876 but with New Light and understanding, their belief is that Jehovah God has allowed the Faithful and Discreet Slave to better understand that the date should have been 1914. According to the Book - 'Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry', Jesus is taught to have arrived in 1914 to claim His rightful place alongside God in establishing His Heavenly Kingdom. This theme is a main doctrine in their teachings and is found in almost all of their publications.
Firstly, it is inaccurate. 1876 was never taught to be the beginning of the Second Coming. That was 1874. Secondly, it is full of Witness jargon. "New Light and understanding," and "Faithful and Discreet Slave" do not communicate to the general public. Thirdly, this is the lead to the article. Such detail may fit better in the body of the article but I do not think it belongs in the lead. Dtbrown 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. It has been quite annoying. BenC7 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Detail in Lead 

message: Establishing of jargon is public knowledge as this is how they preach door to door, so I disagree about the jargon. The dates are referenced in the Watchtower magazines. Also, the terms "New Light and understanding" and "Faithful and Discreet Slave" are or will be linked so those are fine. And since it is such a main doctrinal theme for their teachings, it deserves a place in the introduction and is also further explained in the body of the article. Also, their belief is not in the second coming as their translation of the word 'parousia' is presence so that was incorrect.
Protector of the Truth 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look through WP:MOS. I know its a lot of reading, but it would potentially make things much easier for you in terms of editing. There are some guidelines for the WP:LEDE which are very helpful. joshbuddy, talk 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial information 

message: Perhaps this article should be protected from edits by newly registered or anonymous users. It would save a lot of trouble. I've put a request in. BenC7 10:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent repeated vandalism 

message: The user Jwfacts has recently made an edit with reference to jwfacts.com. If the author of jwfacts.com is also the Wikipedia, JWFacts, it would constitute self-promotion and original research. It should probably be changed, re-sourced, or removed.--Jeffro77 12:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concern about self-promotion and that's been an issue before with other users also. We have at times permitted similar edits to remain on occasion, however. Is this original research? It seems to collate the pubilshed statistics into charts. Dtbrown 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the edits by this user would generally be hard to criticize in terms of factual accuracy or neutrality, I am OK with keeping them. I don't think it is the user's goal to promote themselves/their website. BenC7 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Original Research

message: excessively POV, especially in the intro. It is an illogical statement, and extremely emotive. illogical since it is in no way arbitrary, there are specific scriptural grounds for this, of which all prospective JWs are aware. You may as well point out that David Icke claims that JWs and Mormons are the same organization run by 12 foot shape shifting illuminati lizards. As it stands, the intro is little less emotive and POV than Icke's view. If such statements are to be allowed  at all, should they not perhaps be in the criticisms section, where apparently it is open slather? I don't mind reference to controversies regarding JWs to be in the intro, but their must be neutrality especially in that section. I mean, if I said in the 'Calithumpian Church' page, that 'critics allege that CC members eat their babies' or in the section on Judaism I added a section in the into 'it is believed by some that Jews form part of a 'Zionist global conspiracy', would that be acceptable?
:It would be POV if it was stated as the view of the article. It isn't presented that way. The controversy on the Witness practice of disfellowshipping and shunning is well known in the press and deserves mention in the article. The Witness position is well presented in the sentences before that statement and the statement in question balances the presentation. Dtbrown 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that you're referring to the introduction, and not the article itself. The article itself correctly attributes the comment to a specific critic. Introducing controversy in the introduction is encouraged. joshbuddy, talk 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In my area, if you said something about Jehovah's Witnesses you'd hear about blood or child molestation from them. I don't really think disfellowshiping is on anyone's mind unless they are or know someone who was disfellowshiped. Frankly, I think most critics who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses would probably think it were for the better that they are no longer around them. Instead of making it a paragraph about Disfellowshipping, why not about the controversy surrounding the group in general?--RedLantern 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruel and arbitrary? 

message: While I agree the picture represents the point of view of the Watchtower as to its own organization structure, as opposed to actual fact, I would argue it is of value, in as much as it is our intention to represent the Jehovah's Witness point of view to some limited extent. Perhaps it would be advisable to caption it as such, or move it to the more Jehovah's Witness-centric Beliefs and Practices section. joshbuddy, talk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization picture 

message: The main article is, according to the standard, too long. I feel that the article does include too many words. Does it actually have to include such a long introduction? And does it actually have to include that long section about history? These topics are dealt with in detail in the spcific articles. Summer Song 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the history of the movement should be a central part of the article. The history section was significantly shortened many months ago. Perhaps the introduction could use some trimming. Dtbrown 07:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the section Overview could need some smaller trimming. I hope everyone will be willing to work with this. Summer Song 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The lead needs to be more than two sentences. I have reverted the changes. I think you also need to explain your recategorization spree, perhaps most suitably on the JW project page. BenC7 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction NEEDS to be kept shorter. After some comparisations I think it should be done the way I am doing it now. Summer Song 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  59 kilobytes long 

message: The Watchtower Society quotes so many translations of the bible; how can someone say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the New World translation is the most accurate translation? This assertion needs to be supported by a published statement. -RogerK 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was a given. That the NWT is viewed as "superior" to other versions is well documented in Watchtower publications. Dtbrown 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New World Translation

message: "Jehovah's Witnesses' attitudes towards the United Nations and towards members of other religions, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, have also been controversial."
Can someone elaborate on this in the article? Perhaps make this stand-alone sentence a nice meaty paragraph or two? With sources? —EdGl 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a something-to-do 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other sects, to include Jehovah's Witnesses views on the subject. After the draft looks good and is expanded sufficiently on user space, it can be posted as an article to Religious views on masturbation. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other sects]]