Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 29

message: The spacing is off in this section. I'd fix it if I knew how. I just wanted to point it out for whomever might know how to fix it. JMlover 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford 

message: I decided to "be bold" and do some clean up in the Belief and Practices section. It is supposed to explain current JW belief and practices to the average reader without being an apologetic or a critical section. I'm sure it can still use improvement. Project writing goals say not to cite Scripture unless one is explaining how JWs interpret such a passage. So, those have been removed. Also, I removed sections that focused on past teachings or practices as those do not fit here--this section considers current JW beliefs and practices. I also tried to condense somewhat. Any suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Dtbrown 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief & Practices Clean Up 

message: Hi all interested parties. I wanted to raise the possibility of splitting the article into sub-articles. Suggestions and ideas welcome. The page is very long as it is now and it could benefit from splitting. Could we please have a discussion about this issue? 220.240.24.201 06:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it mostly is; and it's not that long.  Most of the physical display length comes from the references — I added a 3rd column to shorten them a bit.  Any better?  --Haemo 06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Haemo on this. I suppose we could condense some of the material. We already have sub-articles for most of the topics on the main page and it appears they are rarely visited. I would say that we could develop and expand the sub-articles more for detailed information and then consider some condensation of what is on the main page, but without losing the "meat" of the presentation. Dtbrown 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Any body interested? 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)
SV 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD's 

message: I'm assuming this is still the policy (from the JW Project page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Use_of_scriptures
Use of scriptures
Do not cite supporting scriptures when explaining doctrines or practices, unless the issue is the interpretation of a particular passage. In this case, quote the passage in full and then explain the JW interpretation given.
This would seem to be the policy of other encyclopedias as well. I've never seen another encyclopedia cite Scripture verses for documentation. Following the above policy I'm removing Scripture citations that are given as documentation of a belief or position. If others disagree, then perhaps we can re-evaluate the policy. Dtbrown 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripture references in article? 

message: Found these books mentioned in the Britannica article on Jehovah's Witnesses.  Should we add them to the "Further reading" section?
:Jerry Bergman, Jehovah's Witnesses and Kindred Groups: A Historical Compendium and Bibliography (1984). 
"Among the better studies of Witness life and belief are M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed, 2nd ed. (1997), by an academician and former Witness; and Heather Botting and Gary Botting, The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses (1984). 
:The history of the movement is covered in Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (1993)
--Richard 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have Penton and the Proclaimers book already listed. Bergman's book is useful, but it's basically only a bibliography. The Bottings' book is interesting, but not one of my favorites. I'd say perhaps to list Bergman (if we want a bibliography listing) and let others weigh in on the Bottings' book. Dtbrown 01:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading - Books 

message: Spurious means of a deceitful manner. Did poor old Duffer intent to firmly assert that Jehovah's Witnesses weren't a great organization. Doesn't sound NPOV to me. SV 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think Duffer did the right thing in removing the edits. They certainly were out of place. Dtbrown 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How was removing spurious comments (that I personally agree with) NOT neutral? Or are you just given me a hard time? :P  Duffer 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just giving you a hard time Duffer. I just don't think the comments were spurious (meaning false). "POV" might have been a better description. Sometimes you gotta joke around. SV 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'd never looked up the formal definition before.  I've always used it to mean "random" or "out of place".  Duffer 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious

message: Do look up the definition of cult - JW fits it perfectly. To say it is a religion is a nonsense.
217.43.222.47 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, there is a sliding scale between religion and cult. It's not an either/or. I would put Jehovah's witnesses 50% of the way between catholics and scientologists. If you really examine what cults are and how they work you quickly realise that all religions are cults to some degree or another. That's not to say you cant draw a fuzzy line across some region and decide to characterise all religions on one side as cults. It's down to where people put that fuzzy line. And just about everyone will put it in a different place, so to call even scientology a cult is POV. All you can do is cite some source that said "X is a cult" and leave it at that. You can't assert culthood since it is entirely subjective. Personally I consider any organised superstition a cult. That pretty much includes ALL religion, but I cant go round asserting that catholicism is a cult as fact, as most people wont agree with me, and would think I was an asshole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.179.205 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh huh.  That's super; now how about providing some reliable sources which attest to the use of such a pejorative before including it in the article? --Haemo 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Cult" is also a WP:WTA, for I think good reason.  We simply can't make the characterization in keeping with WP:NPOV. Mackan79 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nations, Militaries and major religions also may be made to fit the definition of cult. I think it's very wise to include it in WP:WTA. SV 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly you do not have support for you edit from other wikipedians, nor do you have sources. Duffer 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Duffer, maybe I don;t have support from those caught up in the cult - it's been reverted a few times by a coupe, of people - I wonder what the wider public feels about JW? Please stick to facts rather than what you'd like to be the case. 217.43.222.47 06:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cult is a valid and accurate description for organisations such as JW. It is accepted in courts of law, etc. JW is a cult and for WP to state it is a religion is factually inaccurate - maybe those caught up in it would prefer to view it as a religion but, when you look at legal definitions of cult in the USA and UK, fro example, JW is a cult .. To report anything else is unencyclopdic. Can I suggest that this problem is being caused by belivers trying to pretend they follow a real religion when really they are victims of a dangerous and widespread cult? 217.43.222.47 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide for us just one encyclopedia that refers to Jehovah's Witnesses as a "cult".  The term is most certainly not used in courts, and in nearly every nation on earth Witnesses are recognized legally as a religion.  Also note that I am currently the only Jehovah's Witness editor here.  The others above who have likewise expressed disapproval with your edits are not Witnesses.  Duffer 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your point of view.  You need some reliable sources which attest to it, and then only when it's used in the "X says Y" voice; not in Wikipedia's voice.  For instance, the BBC calls them a "religious movement" .  In addition, the European Court of Human Rights system determined that JW were a "known religion" in Kokkinakis v. Greece (25 May 1993), while similar rulings also were held up for Austria, Germany, Italy, and Canada.  Even the United States upheld their right to be covered by religious protections in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, and they are listed as a religion on the US Census.  Even the Brittanica classes them as a religious sect.  Not that it matters, but I'm not a JW. --Haemo 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to say they are a religious organisation, as currently stated, is fair - but, if you do look at the various definitions of cult, it is also fair to say that JW fit just about the lot. The US Census is irrelvant - remember the nonsense with Jedi being put on various censuses. The BBC "religious movement" is also ok but I think there should be a paragraph, or something in the intro, that shows that many people consider JW a cult, and a dangerous one at that. 86.137.231.4 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that some people believe the Witnesses to be a 'cult' would be WP:NPOV#Undue weight given to the viewpoint of a small group of individuals, when nearly every nation on the planet recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses legally as a religion.  Duffer 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that simply isn't true. Very few countries recognise any religion in that way - including JW. Most nations consider JW a sect, at best (not a full religion) - how about "a religious organisation with many characteristics of a cult" perhaps? You might not like it but it would be accurate. 86.137.231.4 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:RS#What is a reliable source?.  What are the characteristics of a "cult"?  The following of directions of a leader?  Drinking tainted coolaid?  Reciting the same prayer endlessly at the behest of a man who claims to offer absolution?  This can of worms is the highly subjective, viewpoint of a very small group of individual people (be they ex-members, or simply misinformed dissenters).  Whether you like it or not, Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion have gained legal status in most countries.  Again, find me one dictionary/encyclopedia that uses the term "cult" anywhere, in any context, in any Jehovah's Witness, or Jehovah's Witness related article.  Duffer 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a case of slurring them - it's a case of reporting what is accurate. Surely WP should be consistent and WP's definition of a cult absolutely fits JW. 86.137.231.4 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your opinion, and that the problem. By offering your opinion as an entry to the article your introducing unwanted POV to the article. Jamie 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, nothing to do with opinion - it's fact. Are the JW apologists scared of facts? 86.137.231.4 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like original research to me SV 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like apologists and cult members to me. Just take a look at the definitions of cult, and then read about the beliefs and practises of JW. There can be no doubt and if you do a Google search of the two there are many, many references to JW as a cult. For this not to be in the article is ridiculous - in fact it is unencyclopedic and amounts to censorship and control (one of the things which cults like JW are particularly fond of).  86.137.231.4 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JW is not a rligion it is a cult 

message: this article is bloated. a lot of work has been done on establishing subarticles for the JW series, and we ought to focus on getting all the sections down to very brief summaries of their main articles, particularly the beliefs and practices section. i would like to start working on this, but i wanted to declare my intentions before making any major changes as i am unfamiliar with the evolution of this issue thought the articles development. anybody else have any ideas or concerns regarding this? --PopeFauveXXIII 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some reduction is in order, but I cringe at the thought of "very brief summaries." The article should have some meat and if it's just brief summaries it would quickly become superfluous. I'm not sure the belief and practices section on the main page needs much reduction (it is already much smaller than the main article). I plan on enlarging the side history article. (I've been working on the side eschatology article for a few months already.) The section on congregational discipline seems overdone for a main page article. Perhaps we could start with condesning that, but without neutering it of substance? Thoughts? Dtbrown 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the beliefs and practices section, i also meant the blood and congregational discipline sections which used to be subsections of B&P. B&P has been cut down a lot recently, but both blood and discipline have their own articles and get way too much treatment in this article, IMO. i think they should both be pared down to a short paragraph or two, and now that youve mentioned it, i think eschatology merits its own subsection under B&P too. --PopeFauveXXIII 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean now. I still get nervous with "short paragraph or two." I think blood deserves more space than discipline, though it could be trimmed some. Eschatology has been a subset of the History section for quite awhile. I think that is a proper placement as the history of the Witnesses' view of eschatology is intimately connected to the history of the movement. Dtbrown 01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what about an eschatology subsection that covers the current views and expectations of Armageddon thoroughly? Harder to cover that in a historical context... --PopeFauveXXIII 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be interesting. Is there that much to cover for the current belief? The current Belief and Practices section on the main page covers things pretty much already, doesn't it? I suppose we could expand that, but that would add more to the page. Dtbrown 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cruft 

message: I don't think it's fair that they put 1975 under possible time for the Great Tribulation. It wasn't the group as a whole, only individuals, many of whom later left the religon. Everestgirl 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation for the expectations regarding 1975 can be seen here  Dtbrown 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One likely interpretation is that by 1975 the Witnesses had been severely burned by making specific and documented predictions; so while printed material was only heavily suggestive, the fact that so many lesser leaders were insisting 1975 was definite prophecy indicates that this was considered fact at the highest level. The point here is that WBTS seems to enforce a higher level of theological consistency than any similarly sized religious group, so it's very hard for breakaway groups to entertain unofficial beliefs. However, given the lack of smoking gun documentation, this is a topic that requires the most careful, rigorous, and cautious investigation before speaking with too much certainty. As an aside on this issue, the graph showing the historical JW membership seems to have less of a dip at 1975 than I've been led to understand from some sources. 131.172.99.15 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975 

message: A statement of Russell's that his predictions were not "prophecy" and not infallible is in the article, however his other statements that his dates were "God's dates" and that they 'couldn't be changed even if he wanted to' are not presented. The implication given in the article is therefore dishonest and unbalanced in favour of JWs. The article is to be neutral.--Jeffro77 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I think we should provide both statements. Dtbrown 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russell's expectations

message: There is a footnote at the beginning of one of the paragraphs. The text before the footnote has been deleted at some point. Rather than deleting the orphaned footnote, the deleted information should be reviewed and reinserted if appropriate.--Jeffro77 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discipline section

message: I suggest reorganizing the “Other sites” section by separating out the “con” viewpoints into a “Critical resources” section, which would make it a little less confusing.  The “Critical resources” section would include the current links "JW Files," "Watchtower Information Service," and "Witnesses of Jehovah," plus add the following: "*SoundWitness.orgReaching out to Jehovah’s Witnesses & examining the Watchtower"  
Anyone have objections?  This re-organization seems to make it easier to “navigate.”
--Sdiekmann 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had them divided before and there was continual debate as to some resources as to whether they were "critical" or "neutral." It seemed easier to just put them alphabetical and let the readers decide for themselves." As for the resource you suggest--it looks interesting but not noteworthy enough to add to the list here, IMO. Dtbrown 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sites section

message: "The central theme of their preaching is the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of His sovereignty by means of His Kingdom, with Jesus Christ as its Ruler. The Witnesses believe that the reign of Jesus began with the Second Coming or presence of Christ. Originally, this was believed to have occurred invisibly in 1874, but this date was later revised to 1914.[11]
Other Witness teachings include the use of a personal name for God, Jehovah, and the belief that making this name known to others is an important part of worship. They believe that Jesus' death was necessary to atone for the sin brought into the world by the first man, Adam, opening the way for the hope of everlasting life for mankind, and that 144,000 people will receive immortal life in heaven as co-rulers with Christ, guiding the rest of mankind to perfection during the Millennium. Witnesses believe that during the imminent war of Armageddon, the wicked will be destroyed, and survivors, along with millions of others who will be resurrected, will form a new earthly society ruled by a heavenly government and have the possibility of living forever in an earthly paradise."
I'm a former Jehovah's witness and this seems like something that was pulled directly out of their manuals. The language is too euphemistic and poetic and should be simplified to something more precise and concise.As the glorious weep 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but haven't been sure how to approach changing it. It is full of JW-speak; the first sentence of the first paragraph above is pretty much verbatim from Watchtower publications, and should probably be removed altogether. Originally, it was even worse, conveniently ignoring 1874 altogether. I'll give it some thought.--Jeffro77 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting controversial issues is good, where appropriate.  Naming them in the opening paragraph is irresponsible.  Duffer 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you propose? I'm not sure what to do with it, though I have a few ideas on what not to.--Jeffro77 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't like the language in the intro 

message: I notice at the top of this talk page there is the following notice about this article (which I'll quote in part):
Jehovah's Witnesses is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia.
I have no problem with the statment. Funny how the talk page can refer to JWs as a subset of Christianity, yet how many electrons were wasted in discussions on this earlier! Dtbrown 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is part of Wikiproject Christianity? 

message: Should the articles Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, International Bible Students Association and Watchtower Society be merged? They are mostly short and are actually covering facts that could be put together. Summer Song 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about legal instruments 

message: Shylev33 inserted the following text:
:The Date in which the turn of the End of the Gentile times was announced in 1874, to happen and occur a change sometime in the year 1914, the exact date was unknown. Although in turn the Heavens was cleansed of Satan and all the Demons ( the fallen Angels ) and thrown to the Earth as prophesied in Revelation 12:12,13. The Start of the New Heavens as Jesus Christ as the Newly appointed King by his Heavenly Father, God Almighty Jehovah ( YHWH )
I removed it for the following reasons:
*The grammar is appalling. ("to happen and occur", "The Date in which the turn of the", "the Heavens was cleansed".)
*Rediculous capitalisation.
*Stating beliefs as if factual ("heavens was cleansed of Satan...") is POV.
*"sometime" is not a word.
*It misleads the reader by omitting expectations of events supposed to occur in 1874. (jv chap. 28 pp. 631-632: "Calculations based on this cycle of years led to the conclusion that perhaps a greater Jubilee for all the earth had begun in the autumn of 1874, that evidently the Lord had returned in that year and was invisibly present, and that “the times of restitution of all things” had arrived.")
*It misleads the reader by omitting that events were supposed to occur in or after October of 1914 rather than an unknown date. (w5/15, 1911: "Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914.")
Shylev33, please verify your changes before claiming they are "True Correct" edits.--Jeffro77 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shylev33's edit