Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 17

message: I think that this section should be made shorter and put as an subsection of Beliefs and doctrines. The more critical parts of the text belonge to the article Opposition to JW. I think that the factual accuracy of some of these statements is poor and should be further discussed. Summer Song 18:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Escatology section 

message: Hello, Jdavidb. The reason I removed the dates that were put there in random fashion, was because they have no relationship at all with the pages they link to. If they were relevant dates that had some significance and a link that contained additional information directly relating to Jehovah's Witnesses or their beliefs then that would be commendable, but the ones removed have no relevance in their linked pages to anything said in the main Jehovah's Witness page. I'm sure I am not alone in my thoughts that putting links in an article just for the sake of it, is not only pointless, but it clutters up the entire page with totally irrelevant page associations. For an example here: "A 'new light' interpretation of generation was then published in The Watchtower magazine of November 1 1995. At the same time, the Watch Tower Society. . ." If you look up the link to 1 November there is nothing even remotely related to that Watchtower magazine publication, date or subject matter, and the same goes for 1995. If the date/year is a relevant one with some direct connection, like 1914, and the first World War starting and JWs believing that this was an Armageddon date, then that would make some sense, but to have minor publication dates that then have no connected material in the link seems time wasting and a large distraction, especially for new readers, who will inevitably click on the link, and then wonder why on earth they are on a page that contains no relevant material at all to the Jehovah's Witness page they just came from. One could put thousands of links, one to every single word on the page, but would that add, or just distract the whole page's flow and meaning? I'm sure you can see the purpose of a link is for additional or relevant contextual material, too many off topic date links just mess up the whole page, and don't add anything in the way of relevant subject matter. Kind Regards. Central 16:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date links that are not related to articles

message: The Awake Magazine will be going monthly, and will no longer focus on general issues as of Jan 2006.
:These facts are already covered under Awake!. -- Soukie 08:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awake To Be Monthly starting 2006 

message: It is my opinion that since so many beliefs derive from the belief that Christ began to rule invisibly in 1914 there should be information posted that explains the source of this foundational belief. I tried to add the belief that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC to those beliefs distinctive to Jehovah's Witnesses (as this is certainly the case). This is the primary foundations on which the belief in Christ's invisible return in 1914, the belief we are living in the Time of the End, the belief that the preaching work should be expected now, and so forth is based. Why is there no source for this belief listed?
I also added these:
Belief that Jesus is mediator for only the portion of the 144,000 still living (Revelation 7:4; 1 Timothy 2:5) 
Belief that teaching authority is only possessed by the portion of the 144,000 still living (remnant), as a group. 
Belief that the "remnant" is represented in teaching authority by a Governing Body of very few men who have the equivalent of magisterium regarding interpretation of Bible prophecies.
If there is need for source on any of these, I can provide it.
:There aren't any sources to post regarding 607 BC, because Jehovah's Witnesses are the only people (that I know of) that throw out history and make up their own dates for easily one of the best-attested periods of the ancient world. You could probably find a Watchtower publication stating their 'reasoning' for declaring that the entire universe (literally, since simple astronomy is one of the many things against them) is off by 20 years and they're right, but I don't know if that's what you were looking for. If you were looking for a historical source indicating 607 BC, though, you ain't gonna find it, because it just didn't happen that year. It happened in 587 BC (or maybe 586, but I'm pretty sure it was 587). Heck, you can even derive that year from their own publications (look at http://quotes.watchtower.ca/607bce.htm and http://quotes.watchtower.ca/607bce-table.htm if you don't believe me), and they haven't provided even a bullshit explanation as to how in the hell that year would be wrong, they just declare that it is and they're right, and we don't question these infallible old geezers that are tight with God, do we? The discovery of this has even led to Governing Body members resigning, not to mention that it convinced me that they were just another false religion.
:If you happen to have any interest in all the historical evidence for 587 BC and against anything else, I can provide you links to read for hours and hours and hours. There's even books you can buy (heck, I think "Gentile Times Reconsidered" is even listed in this article).Tommstein 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was regarding sources for why JWs claim the dates they do, which there are plenty of, not an invitation for you to get up on a soapbox to express why you disagree with JWs' dates.  The question of sources for JWs' interpretation is a valid one, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.  -- uberpenguin 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, and as I stated, you could find Watchtower publications where they pretty much declare that that's how it is and that's that, if that was what was being looked for, but there are no sources to be found elsewhere, should that be what was being looked for, and I went into detail as to why that was so. I don't think it was specified where it was desired that these sources come from, whether from Watchtower BS or from actual historical sources. If you don't like hearing facts, go back to the Kingdom Hall and off Wikipedia (an encyclopedia, oh no!).Tommstein 21:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was merely a friendly reminder to stay on topic since that is a major issue with discussing this article.  The sarcasm is neither warranted nor appreciated; you can make your point without it. -- uberpenguin 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I apologize. Your post didn't exactly read like a friendly reminder to me, but if that's all it was, I'm sorry.Tommstein 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And many apologies on my part for deleting your apology. :)  I replying below at the same time you did, which brought up the edit conflict page, and I didn't notice your earlier apology.  WP's system for edit conflicts is kinda ugly.  (Ohh... I just noticed what happened; I hit "Save" twice) -- uberpenguin 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool. I agree, Wikipedia's edit conflict resolution is what we can just call "lacking" and leave it at that. There's no reason so much manual work should be done. I cringe in expectation of that page every time I make a long edit.Tommstein 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Who said anything to the contrary? Their belief is certainly that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and the article should definitely say so. Although I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with this either way, it's just a statement of what they believe, pure and simple. Now, if we were in the article about Jerusalem or something and someone tried to whip out that it was destroyed in 607 and cried about it when it got rightfully yanked 13 seconds later, that would be a whole different game.Tommstein 22:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To directly address your question, I think the reason that no sources have been provided is that most of the editors that watch this article know very well that the date is indeed pivotal to JWs (as Tommstein indicated), and simply write the article on that assumption. (and probably because most of their time with this article is spent arguing minute details rather than doing a lot of productive work *sigh*)  A detailed explanation might be viewed as of less than general interest (there are already several JW-related articles since this one would be far too long and boring if it included all the information they do) or, more likely, nobody has thought to write one yet.  If you think that an explanation of why JWs endorse this date is beneficial to the clarity of the article, I'd be happy to do some research on the matter for you.  Personally I think a detailed discussion of JWs' view of Bible chronology is unnecessary in this article, but might make a suitable additional article (seems like there would already be one...). -- uberpenguin 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1914 Major Belief, Source Important 

message: I think it is important to be aware, in our approach to these articles, that every religion has doctrines it considers to be "uncomfortable subjects." Catholics are usually not comfortable discussing the issue of celibacy or the issue of the Ever-Virgin status of Mary. Muslims (in the Western world) are usually not comfortable discussing the issues of the position of women in Muslim society. These are issues that make recruitment and acceptance of the religion more difficult and there is automatic environmental pressure to play down aspects that may be widely considered negative—even if they are factual.
The fact that there are doctrines that religions try to bury in rhetoric and double-talk is not surprising in the least. Neither is it surprising to me when individual constituents of a religion are unable to discern where those doctrines are in their own faith. I think that the forest/trees syndrome is clouding the judgement of otherwise reasonable and sensible people in this project team, as some who are particularly outraged by a particular doctrine post reams of quotes that hide the core doctrine in rhetoric (easily decipherable by anyone outside the religion) and those who are still faithful adherents are unwilling to even glance at the worst aspects of their doctrine.
I ask uberpenguin to consider carefully what has been written regardin the man with the secretary's inkhorn. Everyone who does not receive the mark, what will happen to them? What is the criteria for receiving the mark? Which babies and children will receive the mark and which will not?
If you answer these three questions honestly, according to what is available on the WT Library CD-ROM you will free up a lot of time and we can delete the bulk of two HUGE arguments from the dataset.
PLEASE NOTE, this addition is not an invitation to start the argument up again. This is a reasoned and fair appeal for consideration of a specific point, and I beg that this request for noble-mindedness be respected. Respectfully, Evident 01:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair-mindedness on a subject people care deeply about one way or the other is a difficult state to find, even for those that are otherwise very equanimous.  You rarely find such "fair minded" articles about JWs from any source at all.  From time to time I think this article has a strong case for being one, but that assessment swings just as my general love/hate relationship with the entire wiki concept does.  However, I totally agree with your assessment, which is why I'm trying to avoid the previous futile tactics here of posting pages upon pages of quotes until the entire point of the conflict is lost.  I'll be doing my research.  Thanks for taking an interest; it's easy to lose all desire to create a fair-minded article when you realize you're sitting in an endless pile of quotes.  -- uberpenguin 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Reasons for Obfuscating Religious Doctrine 

message: An IP address (210.185.94.93) added this resource and did not discuss its addition:
*A Muslim Guide to Countering Jehovah's Witnesses A site that displays scanned materials of past Watchtower and Awake magazines to illustrate the failed prophecies of Jehovah's
I corrected the title to match the one on the linked page (the first one did not match at all), but if we allow every site that is critical of Jehovah's Witnesses the article will double in size. I am not advocating censorship, but I don't think that insisting on some discussion of a specific site before addition is unreasonable. Perhaps I am off-base, I am still learning the ropes. Respectfully, Evident 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Central, for making the call on that one. Respectfully, Evident 20:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Look through the pages and pages of archives and you'll quickly realize why.  As someone recently put it, there aren't many third party scholars on JWs except those that already have some bias; either as a current practicing JW or an embittered ex-JW.  Contrast this with a large denomination like Catholicism, for which there are a great number of more or less unbiased third part scholars. -- uberpenguin 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, all ex-Jehovah's Witnesses must be bitter. Way to try to paint everyone with one big dumb brush. My ESP tells me that you would be most displeased if someone were to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts' or anything remotely similar, despite the fact that that one is probably demonstrably more true.Tommstein 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The trend is certain enough for the generalization to be fairly safe...  I'm sure that you are well aware that there are very few people that leave JWs on 'good terms' compared to other religions (and note, by 'leave' I'm not including inactive persons, since most of them generally still consider themself more or less JWs).  Anyway, even for the small demographic of editors of this article I believe the term 'bitter' is more than apt.  Disagree if you will, it's only one lowly person's opinion of course.  -- uberpenguin 13:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources Critical of the Group 

message: The early Bible students taught that Christ's Millennial Reign began in Heaven in 1878. The second paragraph of the article contains an outright untruth.
"From their beginnings, the 'Bible Students' as they were known, focused their evangelizing work on proclaiming the Millennial Reign of Christ would soon begin and destroy the present 'system of things' (including religious organizations and governments)."
It is not true. Firstly, they were not known as the Bible students from their beginning. Secondly, active evangelizing work of the "Millennial Dawnists" or "Russellites" began in 1881 (according to the Proclaimers p. 404) which was three years AFTER the Millennial Reign began. The publications named Millennial Dawn (later called "Studies in the Scriptures") made that teaching a central theme. They were teaching that Christ's Millenial reign had already begun, they weren't teaching that it would soon begin.
They were teaching it would soon destroy the present "system of things." In 1914, to be exact. In fact, as late as 1939 that was still the teaching—the world of Satan ended in 1914. I will correct this portion to reflect factual history instead of desired history. Respectfully, Evident 23:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang, that's a whopper of a lie that you caught there. Although the fact that the Watchtower Society itself lies about that very topic undoubtedly doesn't help anyone wanting to learn their history if they only stick to their bogus version of it instead of doing outside research on their own.Tommstein 08:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Bible students and 1878 

message: DannyMuse, here is the applicable claim from the Statement of Claim: "31. The Defendant’s main purpose in operating the website is...to try to embarrass the Plaintiffs."
I hope that clears that up. I agree that embarrassment is not a tort. At least not under any system of law I am familiar with outside of playground law. However, there it is in the claim. Respectfully, Evident 06:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I revised it in an effort to make it more complete. There are a number of claims. Quoting only one seemed unbalanced and POV. --DannyMuse 15:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes lawsuit 

message: In the "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" section, is heresy really supposed to be capitalized?Tommstein 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tommstein, typically "Heresy" refers only to opposition to dogma of the Catholic Church. The preferred usage would be "heresy" for any other use, unless the writer is using wit to liken the heresy to that against Catholic dogma, or the reaction to it is being likened to the reaction by the Catholic Church in past times. I would personally consider either capitalized use as POV and antagonistic, much as calling a particular view or practice a "Nazi" view or practice would be. But that is just one opinion. Respectfully, Evident 14:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholics get their Heresies capitalized? Who made them cool and special?Tommstein 14:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I suppose it is the privilege that arises from being first out of the gate. I don't really know how it got that way but, except in satire, the preferred use would be "heresy" unless it refers to a Heresy against Catholic dogma. Since Wikipedia is obviously no place for satire, it should be lowercased in most cases. Respectfully, Evident 15:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, it should be lowercase here. I'll change it in a moment if you haven't already done it. I just didn't know that Catholic Heresies were afforded the honor of being capitalized. I guess it's the least we can do for them, considering the Inquisition, the holding of civilization back for at least a thousand years, etc.Tommstein 16:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy or heresy 

message: DannyMuse, so there is no confusion on your part, here is the edit in question.
:*"Like it or not, Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group." --Irving Dilliard.
I removed it, you restored it calling the removal "obviously POV." My removing this quoted opinion expressed by an author/editor in ... gosh, from what is provided I can't verify he ever said that can I? But, I digress. My removal had nothing to do with POV or NPOV. Attribution is not the same as sourcing, except as defined in closed societies that do not concern themselves with trifles like "accuracy of statement."
I followed Wikipedia policy. I could not independently verify (even on exhaustive search within my means) any source for this quote beyond an assertion that it came from "a speech" on a campus. Once I found I could not verify the quote, I deleted it.
Whether or not you initially posted the quote, as an editor of Wikipedia you have an obligation to source it if you EVER restore it to the page because: It wasn't there until you put it back, so you may as well have initially added it. Please SOURCE your edits.
Part of the reason for sourcing is that it is possible to take comments grossly out of context. The book "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?" is full of unsourced quotes taken out of context, if you would like an example of what I mean.
What is the source of this quote? How can I independently verify that this was ever said by Irving Dilliard if you do not source the quote? I don't know why an author/editor's POV comment has any weight, but that is a separate discussion. This quote was removed because it was unsourced. Any editor can do that, it wasn't a POV removal. It was an editor's removal. Please learn to critically analyze for proper sourcing. Your accusation of POV removal was attributing bad motive to me and was undeserved. Evident 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note: all quotations are from either the Wikipedia:Reliable sources or the Wikipedia:Cite sources article. 
As I wrote previously, there are currently many links throughout the article that could/should be changed to this format. I can’t do it all myself. The assistance and cooperation of all editors to this article would be greatly appreciated. I hope this helps clear things up! --DannyMuse 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Why not just link to WP:CITE rather than clogging up the talk page with duplicate information that everyone has access to anyway? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DannyMuse and the Problem of [[WP:CITE|Sources]] 

message: In response to Evident's comments above I am reposting my 5 August 2005 comments on sourcing and formatting of those sources. The complete comments are available in Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 15: 
FORMATTING: [T]he  Wikipedia: Cite sources article says, "… inline references to web pages … [are] … much better than not citing your sources at all.” While that's certainly true, I was aiming for something better than “better than nothing”. That same article also makes clear, “There are several disadvantages with such embedded links, however. Such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be very difficult to rediscover the cited material. … For these reasons, embedded HTML links are discouraged as a choice of citation format.”
Wikipedia:Cite sources has these guidelines for citations: “All references should be collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. List the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work. A numbered reference list, although common in many publications, is currently discouraged in Wikipedia; see below for discussion of this.” This is general format that I am currently after. So what should be included? 
* Amount of citation detail – “A citation should include enough information to allow a reader to find your sources. In particular, be sure to give page numbers or section numbers of a lengthy work if only a small portion is referenced (and it is not immediately obvious where to look). Sometimes, you may want to give a more complete explanation of how you know something, or why your sources are credible.”
As a general example, please see the  Notes and references section of the WP Intelligent design article. 
Obviously this article has a variety of different source types. For specific examples of citation styles see  examples of citation styles in the Wikipedia:Cite sources article. 
CONTENT - Use Reliable Sources: Far more important than format concerns is the issue of the source of the citation. The Wikipedia:Cite sources article states  when you add content “provide all the information necessary to find the original source.” (Emphasis added). 
The article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources advises, “Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. Edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor. (Emphasis added). 
There are several source types: primary source, secondary, tertiary. When editing WP we need to avoid hearsay, and  get close to the source. “When reporting on objective facts, Wikipedia articles should cite primary and secondary sources whenever they exist.” Obviously, primary sources are to be preferred and when they are available they should be used. There are many references in this article by secondary sources and should be replaced by the primary source.  That’s just good editing. For these reasons I will continue to insist on using primary sources when they exist. (Emphasis added). 
Does this mean that we shouldn't use secondary sources? No, but when using secondary sources we need to exercise caution. The following question is particularly helpful when  evaluating secondary sources for reliability and appropriateness: 
*Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?
Regarding  using online sources it is vital that you  don't drop your guard. “Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in.”
“Personal websites and weblogs are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They are at the lowest end of the reliability scale and … should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane … .” 
“Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political or religious website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group.”
:*Note: all quotations are from either the Wikipedia:Reliable sources or the Wikipedia:Cite sources article. 
As I wrote previously, there are currently many links throughout the article that could/should be changed to this format. I can’t do it all myself. The assistance and cooperation of all editors to this article would be greatly appreciated. I hope this helps clear things up! --DannyMuse 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just link to WP:CITE rather than clogging up the talk page with duplicate information that everyone has access to anyway? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification regarding format and content

message: Dtbrown, if the article isn't clear that they don't hold to 1874 and 1878 any more, by all means, feel free to clarify that however you wish. Or I (or anyone else) can do it if you want me to, either way.Tommstein 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern was addressed in Dtbrown's edit. Dtbrown just wanted to make sure that the reader's attention was drawn to the fact that the interpretation of "prophetic dates" (instead of "the Bible") had changed. That was the only part modified before my edit. It seemed to accomplish the goal, in my book. But I agree with you, if Dtbrown still feels that needs more clarification, I'm all for it. Respectfully, Evident 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1874 and 1878 

message: 66.32.226.129, your contribution needs a source for verification. I am pulling it as POV until it is sourced, but I am posting it here so you can copy and paste it back in once it is sourced. Keep in mind, the source must support the statement, "many mainline denominations" is too general for my tastes.
Here is your contribution: "However, the denomination is considered to be a cult by many mainline denominations because of doctrines that are viewed as heretical."
I agree with the statement, but as written it is (1) POV and is (2) positioning the paragraph as primary source. Both of these are disallowed by Wikipedia. Respectfully, Evident 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  66.32.226.129, contribution needs source