Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 20

message: First, I wish to say that I didn't know that "judgement" was actually the spelling used anywhere, and I thought it was just a misspelling. But it's definitely good to know. As to Wikipedia guidelines on this, there are the following:
Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#Should_I_use_American_English_or_British_English.3F
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)
From the last one, it seems that "judgment" is actually the preferred spelling in Canada, India, and Ireland, besides the United States. From the "Different spellings - different meanings" section of the same link, it seems that in Australia "judgment" would be more likely to be used in this specific case too. But, there's probably two ways to view this. One is viewing Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'American' topic, since they started in the United States, their controlling corporations are there, they're the biggest there, etc. In that case, the guidelines are to use American spelling. The other possibility is to not consider them an 'American' topic, in which case we can use whatever we want, as long as we're uniform in the article. In that case, we should use whichever version of English is most widely-used in the article, whichever it may be. It occurs to me, though, that quotes from Watch Tower Society publications seem to use American English, especially older ones before they became nearly as widespread as they are now, so that can either make us see the topic as an 'American' topic or be used on its own to settle on American spellings for the rest of the article. What says everyone else?Tommstein 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Reasoning book is quite clear that they're not an American religion (but that's a whole other issue). Based on what you have said about the Witnesses' American heritage, I suppose spelling may be appropriate - even though it just looks wrong. That said, technically in English, if a 'g' is followed by a consonant (except for the pseudo-vowel "y"), it is hard (or silent, as in 'paradigm' or 'gnome'), except for when it used as part of the "gh" diphthong. (It is also always hard at the end of a word, except when used as part of the diphthong "ng" or when it stands as a letter on its own. There is a larger, more complicated set of rules for when 'g' is followed by a vowel.) Therefore the best syntactic spelling of the word is "judgement".--Jeffro77 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, I have no idea how "judgement" ever became "judgment", if that's the direction the word evolved in. In fact, I used to always spell it "judgement", since it's the only way that actually makes sense, until I discovered the horrible truth one day during a spellcheck or something.Tommstein 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It came about in American English the same way as 'color', 'honor', and America's obesity crisis - laziness.--Jeffro77 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you don't like Americans, seeing as you just stereotyped them as fat and lazy. Did you inform the Canadians, Indians, Irish, and Australians that they're lazy too? Or the rest of the English-speaking world, since apparently "judgment" is also a secondary spelling elsewhere?Tommstein 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of public record that America has a large proportion of overweight people. Actually Australia (where I am) has a problem with chronic obesity too. I was only joking in any case. However, the simple rules of syntax do stipulate that 'judgement' is a more correct spelling. Peace.--Jeffro77 10:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To assume that I don't like Americans because I state that there is an obesity problem there is unjustified. The problem does exist, and the problem exists, both there and here, largely due to a sedentary lifestyle. To say I don't like Americans because some people there are overweight is tantamount to saying I don't like overweight people, which 1) is not true, and 2) over-simplifies the issues associated with obesity.--Jeffro77 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remark was not exactly a simple factual statement that Americans have a documented obesity problem, it was something you threw in on the way to also calling them lazy. I suppose you also have a good reason for calling Americans lazy.Tommstein 11:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a cliché employing dry wit. It was intended only as a parody, not any viewpoint that was to be taken seriously. I wasn't making a political statement about Americans per se. It could just as well have been said about any stereotypical group, and there was no intent to offend.--Jeffro77 12:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Though I'm no fan of American English (a great oxymoron), I'd say the articles should use it, as JW is an American religion that has spread overseas. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My spelling change 

message: If you look under the section entitled "Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses", you'll notice that, in addition to the two actual websites, there's probably like 10 links to subpages within the websites, which aren't themselves "Official websites" at all. Is it really necessary to link to every page of the websites individually? Isn't that the purpose of linking to the sites, instead of passing every individual page off as its own "official website"?Tommstein 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll conceed that point, yes they are subsections to a main website. I'll remove them now. Retcon 04:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, sir.Tommstein 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses" 

message: Just found this description of the book:
http://www.tvgonline.org/read_paper_library.htm
Why would this person's life-story be significant for the main Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses? The blurb here makes it seem that her "acceptance of the faith of JWs" was incidental to this story. Retcon, can you steer us to any other reviews of this book? Thanks!  DTBrown
Since there's no reply from Retcon yet, any other views if this book is worthy to include or not? Dtbrown 04:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is worthy of inclusion, it does touch on some of those points mentioned albeit from a non-glossy first-person perspective.  However, weighted against the other publications, it honestly isn't as authoritative Missionary 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seasons in the Sun

message: So we don't have to archive content that is only a week old just to keep the talk to a reasonable size, please consider the size of your posts before pressing Save. Short, concise and ontopic posts are easier to read and are easier to reply to. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. I tried to read the "User 'missionary' and the Watchtower’s misquotes" section, and gave it a good start, but, uh, my time on earth is limited.Tommstein 08:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please post concise, ontopic replies 

message: Perhaps the way to solve the dispute about the quotes involved in the government section about disfellowshipping is to move them to a new section on the practice itself. Certainly, this is a major distinctive of the Witnesses which should be discussed dispassionately in the article. As it stands, there is only brief mention of the practice. Dtbrown 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an extensive discussion at Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. In a summary article such as this, it is appropriate to mention the issue and refer to the more extensive coverage in the specialized article.  JW's are far from the only religious group to have a practice such as this. It is worth a mention, but is hardly the most distinctive feature of the religion. I don't personally think it belongs in the government section at all - rather in beliefs and practices - but I'm not by any means rigid on that point. I would like to see this article be a useful overview for the readers rather than a vehicle for endless debate by partisan editors on both sides. CarbonCopy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several links to other articles relating to shunning, such as Excommunication for the Catholic faith and shunning for various religions including Jehovah's Witnesses.  Maybe having a link to the subsection of the latter article here with some additional reference material and details might serve both to add content where appropriate and keep this article strictly on the structural component. Steven Wingerter 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a section on disfellowshipping?

message: As there is considerable discussion above regarding a specific paragraph under "Jehovah's Witnesss and Governments" section relating to this terminology "human rights and freedoms", I thought perhaps an open and sincere dialogue of the semantics of this term in relation to the article would be appropriate.  I've borrowed the following quotation from the Wikipedia article entitled "Human Rights":
:"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality."
::From the brief summation of the term in the above paragraph, there seems to be some universal rights that we should nail down, and determine specifically where these are/aren't being violated.  Probably the emphasis will be on "status" within the congregation.  Let us continue...
:"The existence, validity and the content of human rights continue to be the subject to debate in philosophy and political science. However human rights are defined in international law & covenants, and further, in the domestic laws of many states. There is, however, a great deal of variance between how human rights norms are defined in these multiple contexts and how they are upheld in different local jurisdictions."
::From this paragraph, it seems that defining human rights depends on: 
:::1.) situation
:::2.) jurisdiction.  
::As validity of this terminology is called into question, it would seem "human rights and freedoms" is to broad a term to necessarily apply in this context.
:"Within particular states, "human rights" refer to safeguards for the individual against arbitrary use of power by the government regarding 1) the well being of individuals, 2) the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and 3) the representation of the human interest in government. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life. These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments (see below)."
::Here is the centerpiece of the article IMHO.  Human rights is mentioned in relationship to governments, not in relationship to other authoratative bodies such as commercial or religious.
::Item 1.) "Well being of individuals": Jehovah's Witnesses contend that disfellowshipping for divergent thoughts of relevant scriptural and doctrinal established interpretation by their organization is for the "well being of indviduals"...both the individual in question to attempt to readjust as well as to the congregation.  Those not supporting this believe feel this doesn't benefit parties concerned.  So the "well being of individuals" in this neutral context seems subject to the party(s) involved.
::Item 2.) "Freedom and autonomy of individuals": The freedom that is restricted for disfellowshipped individuals relates toward communicating with Jehovah's Witnesses.  However, one in that state can still of their own free volition speak to any individuals including a Witness, and a Witness can either respond or not respond.  As to freedom within a congregational sense, as to restriction of privileges, each organization determines including commercial and governmental determine which individuals are qualified for which positions, etc.
::Item 3.) "Right to life, right to adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, right to self-determination": Right of life is not restricted nor is standard of living nor freedom of self-determination. Freedom from torture only applies if one supposes excommunication/disfellowshipping is an implement of torture.  Some would contend it is, some would not, we'd have no consensus on this matter.  As to freedom of religion and expression, the invididual in question can still attend meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses or attend another religion's meetings, that is their decision solely.  Freedom of mistreatment again depends on the individual whom you'd ask, some would say it is and some would say it isn't, no consensus view.  Restricting freedom of movement, only as relating to communicating with Witnesses and again this is determined by a religious not governmental body where human rights and freedoms specifically apply.
:It is my suggestion that we nail down these terms prior to posting them on the main page, as it will then present this article as a scholarly work that reads objectively. Steven Wingerter 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help if you didn't use such sources as "Wikipedia" as some kind of authority, when it has none. And Human Rights are most certainly not just about what governments do, it applies to all humans. It's as incorrect to say 'rape' is not a crime or injustice unless it's done by some government official, or murder, threats, abuse, or intimidation; they are all realities that exist outside of government actions. Maybe you should start here if you are interested, but I get the feeling you have already made up your mind, and are just looking for snippets of information to try and push that agenda. You don't live in Denver do you by any chance? And besides, the reality of a clear double standard is still there, like it or not, justify it or not with lots of ifs and buts, and "we're a special case" etc. It's still practised, and carried out, and that is what was said all along. Not whether its ok or not, but the fact that there is a hypocritical stand going on, just like someone saying "child discipline is wrong, it's terrible abuse, don't do it" and then they go out and beat the crap out of some child, as if the same moral rule is exempt for them. Central 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Central, thanks for the reference, and you are correct that the link you provided offers a more concise and concrete definition on human rights as a concept.  I can also appreciate that for some, there would seem to be a double-standard while for others there is consistency.  I'm definitely not advocating on the main page that there be a preaching or advocating of Witnesses, for their official policy is that this should be done on the offical website so my agenda is actually to provide a contextually pure reading on the subject.  With that in mind, it is IMHO that the reading of this paragraph that seems to be in dispute would be better served simply presenting the facts, and the sentences following the publication quotations should reflect both perceptions.  Of course, you have a right to disagree, however our goal should be not to expose nor to solicit but to present hard evidence and no opinions, again IMHO. And no I do not live in Denver. Steven Wingerter 15:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Central, I noticed in a recent edit you mentioned some "flammable edits" to the above paragraph in dispute.  That was sincerely not my intent, I simply wanted to polish it up without diluting any content.  I'll defer until a suitable middle ground is established which all sides view as acceptable.  I'm honestly uncomfortable from a purely academic frame of mind with the wording thus far in all previous and current versions of that paragraph, although it honestly has a place in the article as it has endured for so long.  Peace. :) Steven Wingerter 21:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I should point out that that "centerpiece of the article" is explicitly talking about the issue within the context of "Within particular states," not generally. Saying that within the context of a state it means a government not doing this or that doesn't help us much. I'll also point out that the first sentence speaks of them as universal rights, not rights strictly for protection from the government.Tommstein 01:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, human rights are universal, however applying them in the same manner in each society or societal structure is problematic at times.  I am hopeful we can arrive at some middleground as to the language on this disputed witness & gov't page that advocates neither side but simply provides factual data.  After the quotations, the sentences in question do seem to offer an opinion regarding restriction of thought and speech.  Indeed, some will state this is the case, while others (such as those within the organization) will cite their Christian freedom from misconceived beliefs.  I'm not here in this article advocating one without the other, however the argument would best be served if both the supporters and critics on policies be referred to rather than the current structure, stating the critical side and then the organization's defense. I'll tweak the wording a bit and see how the community feels about it's presentation if that's alright with all here. Thank you for your time. Steven Wingerter 15:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much of an encyclopedic opinion on the human rights thing, and in fact was (seemingly, after all the trolls and shenanigans we've had the last few days) long ago advocating simply keeping the old two line version when some wanted to remove it. It didn't give any opinions (that I remember off the top of my head) on whether the Society's policy was good, bad, neutral, or other, but Witnesses came out of the woodwork and continued removing it because they didn't want such an unflattering comparison in the encyclopedia. What has ensued seems to be an example of 'careful what you wish for.' The current thing talking about human rights actually appeared as a proposed compromise, as opposed to either keeping the simpler version or removing it. I haven't followed the development of this human rights version too much; it didn't really seem to have problems until we had sockpuppets causing trouble for the few days they lasted before getting busted. About presenting the views of supporters, that's definitely something that can be included, as long as the views are about the subject under discussion. For example, there was recently an addition somewhere (maybe this section) where the typical Jehovah's Witness view of something that was being criticized was inserted, because such was missing, and insertions like that are perfectly acceptable, anywhere. In fact, NPOV requires that their views be disclosed.Tommstein 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human Rights and Freedoms"