Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed guidelines

message: The following guideline is proposed:
* Editors should not attempt to reconcile contradictory statements in JW publications, as this is original research. Simply state both statements, and allow the reader to determine how to reconcile them. For example:
::"Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. While The Watchtower has often stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive Armageddon[1][2], it has also indicated that ...[3][4]."
=== Comments ===
This guideline is inappropriate. The article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not what non-witnesses may misread out of our publications. For the sake of accuracy, and to avoid hopelessly confusing readers, this guideline should not be followed. Duffer 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duffer, an encyclopedia should include what others think of a topic, and this includes what others see when reading publications. The guideline does not inhibit accuracy, but in fact improves it, since readers see both quotes, not just the one JWs favour. Our job in writing an encyclopedia is not to omit facts to help the reader, but to explain all the facts in a readable way. The above guideline is a good attempt at doing this. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor accuracy.  What happens time and again is that people unfamiliar with the nuances of Jehovah's Witness doctrine draw misguided conclusions about us (theocratic warfare.. armageddon survivors..), then post the most damning out-of-context quotes they can get their hands on, and launch propoganda that Michael Moore himself would be proud of.  I can agree to this guideline if context and accuracy are maintained.  If the quote is just there to misdirect people about what Jehovah's Witnesses really believe, then i'll likely object to it... WT '03 pg. 16: "God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends".  Btw, how many articles do we need in-depth descriptions of our Disfellowshipping doctrine on?  Duffer 09:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say out of context, do you mean in the sense of contrary to the meaning of the paragraph or article its contained in, or contrary to the general doctrine as understood by individual JWs? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both.  As Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort, not what Jehovah's understand as individuals, but what the WTS officially teaches; that is unacceptable.  Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do provide clear examples instead of blowing hot air.Tommstein 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What individual JWs understand is not verifiable, so that can't be taken into consideration. The quotes I have read so far are not out of context in the sense of contrary to the paragraph or article that the quote is taken from. In this sense, the quotes are accurate and contextual, and therefore constitute official WTS teachings. None of the quotes were of the "God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"-sort; suggesting so is being disingenuous. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about what individual Jehovah's Witnesses understand, NOR is it what non-Jehovah's Witnesses missunderstand from the same publication (which is essentially what you're turning this into).  This is about what the WTBTS officially teaches.  If a quote misdirects an un-informed person into a false conclusion about our doctrine, that conclusion is still false.  Tomm's quotes are verifiably out of context.  WT articles are themed, off-theme topics are written with as little specifics as possible in order to avoid detracting from the theme of the article.  Unfortunately this results in a large amount of 'with us / against us' quotes that do not specifically address those who are not with us, yet not against us either.  NONE of Tomm's quotes specifically address this, contrary to that, the quotes I have provided DO specifically address this "grey area", not just in articles but in the Reasoning From the Scriptures book.  That book is a carry sized, quick-answer to Jehovah's Witness doctrine (latest edition 1984 i think).  See my request for the Mediation Cabal on the main JW discussion page.  Duffer 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please do provide clear examples instead of continuing to blow hot air and hoping that if you say something enough times it'll become true. There's a mountain of quotes that specifically say that only Witnesses are getting through. I could just as easily turn your quotes around and say that they're just declaring that we're not the judges, not that any non-Witnesses actually have any hope. Want me to do that?Tommstein 06:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the public face Jehovah's Witnesses want to present as an advertising brochure.Tommstein 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is indeed appropriate, and is a far stretch from the humorous cry of victimization and misrepresentation posted by Duffer above ("God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"). Sometimes Witness literature avoids being too specific on things because they have learned their lesson on past specifics that never came to fruition, so there is often vagueness in their publications. If this vagueness is misinterpreted by people, both within and outside the religion, then they have brought it upon themselves. When dealing with such instances, it is most appropriate to provide as much information as is required to give the full picture of their beliefs, and the guideline above allows that to be done in the fairest way and avoids calling them straight out liars. That said, if something is no longer a current Witness belief, it should be clearly indicated that it was a once-held view rather than a current belief that contradicts another current belief.--Jeffro77 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your misunderstanding is the WTS's fault?  Tough luck for them?  Yes lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric.  We'll call it The Republicans Wikipedia.  But really, when dealing with ambiguous quotes, most of the time the meaning depends on the source of the quote.    If you've read even one WT you'll notice that the articles are all themed.  Off-theme points are written with as little info as possible in order to not detract from the main theme of an article/magazine.  Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duffer, firstly whose misunderstanding are you referring to? Mine? Which misunderstanding is that? Or do you mean the public in general, into whose hands the Society wants the magazines to get into? Don't they then have an obligation that the information for their desired target readers is not misleading? Anyway, you have, either deliberately or unintentionally, tried to misdirect my point. You seem to be implying that the kind of vague statements I was referring to are side points unrelated to the theme, whereas I was referring to intentionally vague comments, such as the dangling 1975 carrot referred to in 1966:  "What about the year 1975?... Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! ... Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. ... But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying." The Society also makes vague comments on non-doctrinal matters to, usually so that it is not so specific that they can be held accountable for anyone taking their advice, but specific enough to make people feeling guilty about things.--Jeffro77 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you know, he's the only one that knows what he's talking about here, all four or five or whatever it's up to now of us that actually have reading comprehension skills are all just "misunderstanding" what is clearly saying something else.Tommstein 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The language employed in the buildup of the 1975 fiasco was a mistake, one that stumbled an unknown number of Witnesses, and the WTBTS is directly accountable for that.  It is not likely they will make that mistake again.  The insinuative manner in which they posited such information, to some, was tantamount to the WTS just outright saying it.  That is not the case in this specific situation, however, if such quotes were/are to arise in the future then I see no problem with posting it with context and accuracy.  Say it's 1974 and the WT is publishing above quotes, an amicable wiki edit might read: "Although their current doctrine states that the time of Armageddon is uncertain, recent articles indicate...".  But back to our specific issue; posting apparently directly conflicting quotes, and "letting the reader decide for themselves" will just cause hopeless confusion and will undoubtedly leave a reader with misconceptions about what Jehovah's Witnesses really teach, thus rendering the proposed guideline entirely disingenuous to the entire Wiki project.  Duffer 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciling contradictory statements 

message: This guideline is inappropriate. The article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not what non-witnesses may misread out of our publications. For the sake of accuracy, and to avoid hopelessly confusing readers, this guideline should not be followed. Duffer 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duffer, an encyclopedia should include what others think of a topic, and this includes what others see when reading publications. The guideline does not inhibit accuracy, but in fact improves it, since readers see both quotes, not just the one JWs favour. Our job in writing an encyclopedia is not to omit facts to help the reader, but to explain all the facts in a readable way. The above guideline is a good attempt at doing this. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor accuracy.  What happens time and again is that people unfamiliar with the nuances of Jehovah's Witness doctrine draw misguided conclusions about us (theocratic warfare.. armageddon survivors..), then post the most damning out-of-context quotes they can get their hands on, and launch propoganda that Michael Moore himself would be proud of.  I can agree to this guideline if context and accuracy are maintained.  If the quote is just there to misdirect people about what Jehovah's Witnesses really believe, then i'll likely object to it... WT '03 pg. 16: "God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends".  Btw, how many articles do we need in-depth descriptions of our Disfellowshipping doctrine on?  Duffer 09:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say out of context, do you mean in the sense of contrary to the meaning of the paragraph or article its contained in, or contrary to the general doctrine as understood by individual JWs? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both.  As Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort, not what Jehovah's understand as individuals, but what the WTS officially teaches; that is unacceptable.  Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do provide clear examples instead of blowing hot air.Tommstein 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What individual JWs understand is not verifiable, so that can't be taken into consideration. The quotes I have read so far are not out of context in the sense of contrary to the paragraph or article that the quote is taken from. In this sense, the quotes are accurate and contextual, and therefore constitute official WTS teachings. None of the quotes were of the "God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"-sort; suggesting so is being disingenuous. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about what individual Jehovah's Witnesses understand, NOR is it what non-Jehovah's Witnesses missunderstand from the same publication (which is essentially what you're turning this into).  This is about what the WTBTS officially teaches.  If a quote misdirects an un-informed person into a false conclusion about our doctrine, that conclusion is still false.  Tomm's quotes are verifiably out of context.  WT articles are themed, off-theme topics are written with as little specifics as possible in order to avoid detracting from the theme of the article.  Unfortunately this results in a large amount of 'with us / against us' quotes that do not specifically address those who are not with us, yet not against us either.  NONE of Tomm's quotes specifically address this, contrary to that, the quotes I have provided DO specifically address this "grey area", not just in articles but in the Reasoning From the Scriptures book.  That book is a carry sized, quick-answer to Jehovah's Witness doctrine (latest edition 1984 i think).  See my request for the Mediation Cabal on the main JW discussion page.  Duffer 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please do provide clear examples instead of continuing to blow hot air and hoping that if you say something enough times it'll become true. There's a mountain of quotes that specifically say that only Witnesses are getting through. I could just as easily turn your quotes around and say that they're just declaring that we're not the judges, not that any non-Witnesses actually have any hope. Want me to do that?Tommstein 06:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the public face Jehovah's Witnesses want to present as an advertising brochure.Tommstein 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is indeed appropriate, and is a far stretch from the humorous cry of victimization and misrepresentation posted by Duffer above ("God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"). Sometimes Witness literature avoids being too specific on things because they have learned their lesson on past specifics that never came to fruition, so there is often vagueness in their publications. If this vagueness is misinterpreted by people, both within and outside the religion, then they have brought it upon themselves. When dealing with such instances, it is most appropriate to provide as much information as is required to give the full picture of their beliefs, and the guideline above allows that to be done in the fairest way and avoids calling them straight out liars. That said, if something is no longer a current Witness belief, it should be clearly indicated that it was a once-held view rather than a current belief that contradicts another current belief.--Jeffro77 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your misunderstanding is the WTS's fault?  Tough luck for them?  Yes lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric.  We'll call it The Republicans Wikipedia.  But really, when dealing with ambiguous quotes, most of the time the meaning depends on the source of the quote.    If you've read even one WT you'll notice that the articles are all themed.  Off-theme points are written with as little info as possible in order to not detract from the main theme of an article/magazine.  Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duffer, firstly whose misunderstanding are you referring to? Mine? Which misunderstanding is that? Or do you mean the public in general, into whose hands the Society wants the magazines to get into? Don't they then have an obligation that the information for their desired target readers is not misleading? Anyway, you have, either deliberately or unintentionally, tried to misdirect my point. You seem to be implying that the kind of vague statements I was referring to are side points unrelated to the theme, whereas I was referring to intentionally vague comments, such as the dangling 1975 carrot referred to in 1966:  "What about the year 1975?... Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! ... Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. ... But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying." The Society also makes vague comments on non-doctrinal matters to, usually so that it is not so specific that they can be held accountable for anyone taking their advice, but specific enough to make people feeling guilty about things.--Jeffro77 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you know, he's the only one that knows what he's talking about here, all four or five or whatever it's up to now of us that actually have reading comprehension skills are all just "misunderstanding" what is clearly saying something else.Tommstein 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The language employed in the buildup of the 1975 fiasco was a mistake, one that stumbled an unknown number of Witnesses, and the WTBTS is directly accountable for that.  It is not likely they will make that mistake again.  The insinuative manner in which they posited such information, to some, was tantamount to the WTS just outright saying it.  That is not the case in this specific situation, however, if such quotes were/are to arise in the future then I see no problem with posting it with context and accuracy.  Say it's 1974 and the WT is publishing above quotes, an amicable wiki edit might read: "Although their current doctrine states that the time of Armageddon is uncertain, recent articles indicate...".  But back to our specific issue; posting apparently directly conflicting quotes, and "letting the reader decide for themselves" will just cause hopeless confusion and will undoubtedly leave a reader with misconceptions about what Jehovah's Witnesses really teach, thus rendering the proposed guideline entirely disingenuous to the entire Wiki project.  Duffer 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments