Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 21

message: I received a notification that I had been reported by "Duffer" for my attempting to correct an error in the Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is my understanding that links within the External Links section should deal with the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses and or the Watchtower and its theology. Recently, a link kept appearing that is not about Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is simply someone's personal site to attack a person they formerly associated with. This is expressly clear even from the site's own description (see e-watchman-exposed link). Is this not an inappropriate and off-topic link to have in that section? I'm not really sure that the link's description could be worded differently to make it more on-topic for the article, since the site itself focuses only on attacking a couple individuals in some sort of "campaign" against "apostates" and has nothing to do with serving as a resource on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower organization. (Maybe it would be more on-topic in a wiki article on "e-watchman.") In any event, please advise. 
I'd also like to note that the other link submitted by the same site, concerning the Society's teaching on 607 DOES seem on-topic and thus an appropriate resource related to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower's theology. I did not and am not inclined to make any changes to that particular link, in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. Timothy Kline 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources and Links 

message: There's a few areas that appall me. In some places there's generally a stating of fact that Jehovah's Witnesses believe something but doesn't give any logic/reasoning to it. It just says what it is and that the religion believes it's right. Then there's a few statements that give logic/reasoning against that belief. That isn't neutral, that's a negative tone.
I also taste a subtle undertone throughout, that makes it seem like the Governing Body shouldn't be trusted and is overriding scriptural truth and Jehovah's Witnesses are being mislead by them. If I didn't already know what my religion believes and why, I'd think Jehovah's Witnesses were all crackheads in a cult after reading this.
Some areas seem to delve into small points as if they're large parts of being a JW. One example of that, is the eschatology section. It could be trimmed. The excess does have a tone of "see how wrong the Witnesses have been and how they make excuses for it", rather than "see what the Witnesses have gone through and how they dealt with it", which should be the case in a neutral POV article. I kept finding myself thinking "Would an encyclopedia in the local library have such a tone?" as I'm reading.
Sometimes both sides of the argument are displayed well, but that's still not a good idea. Being unbiased isn't about giving both sides of an argument, it's about saying something is a table. If we write "some say it's a table for this reason and that reason, and others say it's desk for this reason and that reason", that's not unbiased, that's a debate. Debate's use counter arguments and therefore gives both biases. That doesn't often translate to anyone having neutrality on a subject.
There's just a general subtle but clear anti-Jehovah's Witness tone throughout this article, that "distracts from the facts". I can't cite everything because it's too ingrained and I'd end up quoting much of the page.
I realize we have JW's and anti-JW's here trying to work together on this and that you've all done a great job in getting this far. I'm new to this article, but I just want to make sure you know I do appreciate all the difficulties you've gone through in this already.
--Ando por Fe 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Question 

message: For all date formats, please refere to date formatting. - CobaltBlueTony 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty handy. Thanks. Although I can probably personally count all the dates I've ever added on one hand and have a bunch of fingers left over.Tommstein 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: *Since it's such a big deal for the opposers on this website to have a link to the Arianism page (from a religion that ISN'T Arian...), I directly linked to the only relevant information on the Arianism page: Arianism#"Arian" as a polemical epithet.  This the recommended inter-wiki linking etiquette (Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context). Duffer 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arianism again.. 

message: I think it's a good idea for both JWs and ex-JWs here to keep in mind that the Society does not publish an up-to-date explanation of current doctrine. If a doctrine is changed, the Society publishes the new thoughts while rarely mentions previous doctrine. Sometimes, what is publishes appears to contradict what has been already published.
Due to the often vague details of particular beliefs (such as who will be destroyed at Armageddon), I think we need to decide on two things:
* When stating what JWs currently believe, the newest reference wins. Older references can be used to explain what JWs previously believed.
* Often there is a discrepancy with what individual JWs profess to believe and what the WT appears to say. In this case, the sentence should simply say that the Watchtower says this. This allows for the WT statement to be interpreted by individual JW how he/she sees fit.
* If a newer reference is vague, and the older reference is more specific, it's probably a good idea to mention both. For example:
::"While The Watchtower has stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive ArmageddonRef, it has previously indicated that ...Ref."
Hopefully this will help settle the quote wars. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent set of guidelines which could go a long way towards settling the differences that seem to be ongoing to say the least. Perhaps something similar could go onto the project page as disagreements over old and new quotes from the WT have an impact in all such articles. Lucille S 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea in principle, however in the case of your example (who will survive Armageddon), the doctrine protrayed by Central and Tomm has never been, and is not a belief of Jehovah's Witnesses.  It has never been, and is not an official teaching.  The quotes havn't indicated anything; the discrepancy arrises from nothing more than an ignorance of official Jehovah's Witness doctrine.  Allowing "it has previously indicated", in this case, would be deceitful.   In this case a more accurate sentence would read: "Bias often influences how one reads Jehovah's Witness publications.  This is exemplified by the misreading, and misrepresentation of several out of context quotes posted on quotes.watchtower.ca regarding the issue of "who will survive Armageddon".  More often than not, prejudic takes over and the mislead individual parrots the misinterpreted in order to bias others regardless if they believe what they're saying to be true or not."    Duffer 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's discuss that specific example. See below. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One thing that occurs to me is that footnote 13c buried on page 29 of an Awake cannot supercede major, still-used stuff like the Insight volumes, Reasoning and Knowledge books, etc. Otherwise, we would probably have to change their list of beliefs somewhat every time a new magazine comes out.Tommstein 09:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitiveness of WT beliefs 

message: As per the discussion about quotes, I have added the following guidelines to the project page:
* State that "The Watchtower says..." rather than "Jehovah's Witnesses believe...". This avoid difficulties in different interpretations of what the WT is saying; the WT statement can be interpreted by the reader, rather than by editors.
* Use the newest available reference when stating what JWs currently believe.
* 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]."
This should solve at least some of the arguments here. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem one is that we would probably need to tear down the entire Beliefs section and replace it with a bunch of quotes. Problem two is that someone arguing that inconvenient statements don't say what they say (cough Duffer cough) will then just argue that they haven't in fact "also indicated that" other stuff, so it shouldn't be in the article at all; it just changes what people are fighting about (slightly).Tommstein 19:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses not what JW publications may infer to non-JWs.  The particular section in your example is "Beliefs and Doctrines", adding what non-JWs misread out of our literature is highly inappropriate. Duffer 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, the article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the lies, I mean "theocratic warfare," that members want to present in public in order to make more converts.Tommstein 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion regarding the appropriateness of the third guideline can be found here. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editing guidelines 

message: Baylor Universty Jornal of the Curch and State autumn 2005 release date dec, 13 2005. Is a new peer review study critical of the jw blood issue. Mainly of it's misrepresting the facts in it's literature.
more info found here 
P.S. Finally something good comes out of Waco,TX--Greyfox 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Written by an attorney.. not a doctor.  I wonder what peer review will have to say about it.  Duffer 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I think 80% of the brother ans sisters will say, but the is illrelevent. They studied the brocures and checked the facts in them and found many pertaining to the blood issue misleading. This will have more an effect on those who have familly in the group (especially those who have lost ones with a blood problem) or are thinking of joining or know someone about to join. This could also effect thier tax exempt status in the process you can not give misleading facts to your people and keep it. Oh by the way just because you are a attorney does not mean you did not consult a doctor for your study.--Greyfox 15:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goood points, but you cannot say what they have, or have not found when you have not read the article.  It will be interesting how this unfolds in the future. Duffer 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This also make the shutting down of quotes.watchtower.ca. all the more juicy. What were they thinking, They look like they are covering something up.--Greyfox 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You did not post any questions.  Duffer 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry everyone else, I am done feeding this troll.--Greyfox 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you just don't understand, he's right and the one ultimate authority about everything related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone else that comes across this page is a troll for begging to differ from his authoritative, official opinions.Tommstein 04:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That doesn't make any sense at all.  Duffer 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is, he's not right. The Witnesses here like to make grandiose, uselessly vague claims pretending everyone else is biased and they're somehow perfectly unbiased NPOV superstars, while ignoring that the history here demonstrates that the opposite is closer to the truth.Tommstein 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dam to burst next year on blood issue, possble news event 

message: You can find my request for mediation here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 12 2005 Jehovah's Witnesses.  Duffer 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal