Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3

message: I am considering deleting the text of the page until this current problem can be resolved. Someone continues to chop up an already concise and accurate article for personal reasons I can find no academic reasons for the actions being taken by this anonymous invidual. Since I am not an admin, Some help please.
:I think this page should be protected, because it is corrupt by anti-JW. K.M. 01:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  should the page be protected? 

message: Was there a particular reason for the June 22, 2004 revert of my edits of a few days earlier? --Gary D 20:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of a reason, I reverted their revert to restore your changes. Sorry about that, Gary -- seems an odd edit to revert. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jwrosenzweig. Even as against an anonymous editor, I didn't want to do a quick reversion myself without having a third-party "referee" editor do it or myself allowing some time to pass first, since that smells of starting an edit war. I do understand that these can be touchy topics to edit. To the anonymous editor, I say that I am willing to discuss the reasons for my recent edits. --Gary D 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A great attitude, Gary -- you have the right perspective about this.  Exactly what I would have done under the circumstance.  I hope it all ends happily, as it seems to have.  Perhaps the anon was simply testing out reversion to see if it worked? Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mebbee. Thanks again. --Gary D 22:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: June 22, 2004 revert

message: I support the June 28th edit. Moving controversy out of the context-establishing top paragraph is in line with WP style on controversial topics. --Gary D 18:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: June 28, 2004 edit

message: Also persistent is something showing up about the "ecumenical movement"; as though "it" were something that had a negative opinion about those that do not participate in "it".  Since the most vocal critics of the JWs are critical precisely in the sense that they wish to exclude JWs from anything ecumenical, I can't even tell if the parties are being ironic, who are complaining about criticism from the "ecumenical movement" to the effect that JWs are wrong because they don't want to be part of it.   Anyway, it makes little sense to me, and so I've removed it several times; and without some explanation here, I can't see why I shouldn't remove it whenever it appears.  Mkmcconn — 20:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ecumenical movement 

message: What critics are being described by
: "Much criticism has also come from the Watchtower Society's reference to itself being the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" of Matthew 24:45-47."
They claim all sorts of provocative things for themselves.  I doubt that this claim gets much more attention than anything else.  Who thinks that it does? or, is this just more advertizing masquerading as something else?  Mkmcconn — 04:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: doubtful cause of opposition

message: Is it just me, or have recent edits(past couple of weeks) serverely modified this article, and not in a good way.  I don't know, but it just feels lacking compared to when I read it a few weeks ago.  Anyone else notice this?  -- elykyllek 17:19, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it has been chopped up like it always does. A few months ago it was a thoroughly informative article but it got cut up and any time someone makes a positive or neutral addition about JW's to the article eventually someone with a beef throws in just enough deletions and changes to ruin it.
george m
: Could you be a little more vague please? < /sarcasm > Wesley 04:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: It is written very obviously by an active JW, with only positive viewpoints about JWism represented. This would be like an article about the Democratic party spouting only wonderful things about them, and never raising popular controversial issues.
The article praises JW involvement in the holocaust, but fails to mention that the JWs themselves were praising hitler in their 1934 yearbook and saying that they also despised jews and jewry. It fails to discuss the controversialness of blood transfusions, or that many children have died because of that particular dogma.
JW Nazi Conciliation
:For one thing this article is edited by many who are and are not JW's. Second, Former JW's keep trying to use a few words in a single publication produced during a time of extreme duress as the official position of JW's. Ridiculous. The US government and the historians who worked on the US holocaust museum as well as = every other credible historian = have not found this to be an important issue to address. Thirdly you are bringing up issues about subjects dealt with on other pages. george m
:And is it true that MANY children HAVE DIED because of JW doctrines? In Japanese Wikipedia, that controversy is occured. But it has no evidence. Rantaro 11:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is extremley biased in favor of JWs