Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Start project

Getting started. george 03:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Websites critical

Well perhaps this is not the correct approach. It might be better to clean up the existing pages and then link them. They can be cleaned up by using a strict standard of source documentation. This way unfounded inflammatory statements will stay out, gushing nonsense will be removed and a more factual presentation will result. Finally, by making sure that overlap of articles does not result in duplication of material, it should be possible to achieve what you are setting out to do without ignoring the rubbish that may be on Wikipedia at the present time. I have an interesting book about Russell that was written by David Horowitz, a Jew, who wanted to preserve Russell's positive interest in promoting Zionism. When Judge Rutherford came along a lot of Russell's life story became totally distorted. (By the way, I have my own library of several thousand books. I am in interested in biographical history and I am in no way connected to the JWs.) MPLX/MH 05:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, then you may be called on for some assistance!
george 13:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page definitely needs a different name and format. Since I don't know how to do that, please help.george 20:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I support this. Anybody have a proposed new name? Tom Haws 20:13, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Criticisms of ...." It's irrelevant if the criticisms are on the internet or in hardcopy publication. - UtherSRG 22:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you guys are going with this, I really don't. There is an alternative to Wikipedia that follows this format - one pro and one con article, but it was my understanding that Wikipedia is NPOV. If that is the case then this entire process is going to get a vote for speedy deletion. The overall project is okay, but that means that it is NPOV and that it looks at the subject from an overall and well documented perspective. If you document everything all of the rah! rah! stuff will fail and so will all of the bad mouthing. I think you are getting off the track before you got on to it. MPLX/MH 20:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MP, I think all george is saying is that it seems a little un-encyclopedic to have an article solely dedicated to anti-JW links. I am pretty sure we all agree, but are failiing to communicate in this flurry of trying to get this new project page set up. Tom Haws 20:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is forgetting this title was picked by the contributors to that page. --DannyMuse 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles about Jehovah's Witnesses

I put a (huge) skeleton of a list of articles about Jehovah's Witnesses. The Wikipedia may someday be this complete. I patterned it from the List of articles about Mormonism, so it may not all be appropriate, and it may overwhelm. Feel free to abridge or move to another page. Tom Haws 20:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why can't this project (or any similar project) simply trace the documented and sourced history of this group? I think that this current approach is a mess. The Mormon approach from which this is taken is a mess. No one can learn anything at all because it is all too fractured. Besides which, if it is factual and NPOV that is supposed to be the theme of Wikipedia.
The fact is that the JWs had a beginning in the recent past. That is a fact and it can be documented. The history of the founder can be documented. The splits can be documented. You cannot put on trial a faith because a faith is a belief and as the old saying goes: "Convince a man against his will and he is of the same opinion still." Or in other words, "I don't care what you say, I believe it anyway." The only way to treat this subject is as history with a demand for strict documentation. You can't have a critical page because if it is critical then the person is not a JW but something else. It is a contradictory idea, let alone a contradictory name.
My suggestion? Scrub the entire process to date and start with the words "In the beginning ..." (whatever the beginning of the JWs was) and back it up with strict proof in sources. Otherwise I think that someone has created an unworkable mess. MPLX/MH 00:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Great comments. Some of us think that there is enough content about JWs to fill many, many articles. And we hope to avoid it becoming too-ooooo messy :-D. Tom Haws 04:33, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
MPLX, I appreciate your input here. I feel that the articles about JW's are fairly complete. I was surprised to see so much in Toms' skeleton (no offense Tom) it actually seems a bit daunting. Part of the reason I wanted a page for the purpose of "Critical" was so that the very vocal opponents of JW's would have a place to put their rants, and I am sorry, but to give them enough rope to expose their motives. BUT, I was encouraged by Tom to get involved, and Although I am working with it, I am still harboring doubts about the idea. Wow what a wonderful start we're off to! george 22:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: The articles are fairly complete, even though there are some interesting aspects that this suggested format would allow for. But, I'd like to start out with an objection. Actually two, really. Two categories do not belong here:
Category:Mormonism and controversy (Isn't it obvious why?)
Category:Jehovah's Witness leaders (Jehovah's Witnesses do not have any human leaders as such. Some might be more or less prominent or wellknown, but they accept only one leader, Jesus Christ; Matthew 23:10)
--Porthos 23:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Porthos has a good point. Obviously this list lifted from the Mormon matrix was done without proof-reading, that is how the Mormon name got in here. A good point is also made by Porhos regarding their leadership. Unlike a lot of pyramid groups the JWs are more like the Congregationalists and Church of Christ in structure. The unifying factor is the publishing house. Again I don't see how this can be a NPOV project with a critical theme built in because that is what Wikinfo set out to do. So if you want to take a positive and negative approach it should be shifted over there. Otherwise this should be a STRICT PROOF collection of articles with bios for Russell; another for Rutherford; another on the JWs with regards to the laws of various nations as it has and does effect them and another on the history of the publishing company. Splits and divisions are separate articles because the people are no longer JWs. I do think that you need to put a brake on this project because it is clearly going in an anti-Wikipedia and into a more Wikinfo direction very quickly. MPLX/MH 01:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, I think I agree with MPLX. It should be possible to document what is known about the Jehovah's Witnesses historically from an NPOV, with a reasonably neutral tone, without the pro/con split. We shouldn't have articles reading like diatribes against the JW's, and neither should we have articles reading like reprints from the Watchtower. I haven't looked at the Mormon articles in a while, perhaps they need some cleanup as well. Wesley 17:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is anybody here at all suggesting a pro/con split for articles? I am afraid MPLX reacted prematurely to something that I don't think is going on. It is perfectly appropriate to whack the sleleton list down that I threw in here. In fact, I am very concerned that the list is daunting, and I would rather have it removed entirely than have it turn off editors. What we should all agree on is that the JW area needs a bit more transparency of organization. Perhaps the best place to start would be a simple reorganization of the list of articles I gleaned from Google, instead of battling a retrofit skeleton from WP:LDS. I apologize for my mistakes here. Growing pains, nothing more. Take heart and do not be discouraged. Tom Haws 19:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Duh? I was invited here (joined and "unjoined") because of an article whose title was a criticism of the JWs! Someone isn't as familiar with this monster of a weed that they pretend to be! MPLX/MH 20:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom sure isn't very familiar with it, if that is what you mean.  :-D I have found it really tough to get a grasp on it, which is one reason why I favor this project, Hey! I found a page that I think shows really well what I envision of where we could be as opposed to where we are http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jwitness.html . I may bring this page up again, because I would really like to get feedback from others about it. Tom Haws 22:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add a page for detailed discussion of the legal and institutional problems surrounding the JWs. Why not Jehovah's Witnesses and the legal system or Jehovah's Witnesses and governments? As far as I understand, JWs also have legal problems in countries such as Bulgaria and Russia, in addition to the well-documented cases in the US and France. I'm prepared to make the move if it's consensual. David.Monniaux 09:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, that is a good suggestion. I think you have a great perspective on the problems within this project. Perhaps this project page (formed only a week or two ago) will assist us to form the level of comraderie and consensus that will be required for some successfull boldness and creativity to rework and improve the project. In fact, I am thinking maybe you should put a poll for Jehovah's Witnesses and governments on the project page in a new Project Polls section. Tom Haws 16:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I personally like the idea of a page titled:
I think that's more inclusive, after all legal systems are just part of governments. So Jehovah's Witnesses and the legal system could be a subhead with the former. --DannyMuse 04:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JW Leaders, non-bias, and the future of a WP:JW project

Porthos said: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not have any human leaders as such. Some might be more or less prominent or wellknown, but they accept only one leader, Jesus Christ." But there is a JW governing body, and a president. In short, there is somebody driving the car. In the bigger sense than this particular issue, it is important that JW editors respect the efforts of others to present on Wikipedia those factors unique to JWs that make them what they are. It is reminiscent to me of the circles User:Wesley used to go around with the LDS editors trying to get straight answers to his questions, while all along the LDS editors were desperately trying to protect their spin. Wikipedia can and should present the idea of how and why JWs believe and express that they have no earthly leaders. But it should also present the full and complete history, reach, and culture of the JWs even if that history tends to lead outside observers to different conclusions than those held by the JWs themselves. This is a classic application of our non-bias policy. It is essential that some of the JW editors catch the vision of the value of this approach. Without that, there can be no real and successful WP:JW. I respectfully submit that without the participation of both User:Polemotheos and User:DannyMuse, this project is an idea whose time has perhaps not yet come unless you others, especially georgem, who I know has a bit of Wikipedia experience, will rise to the occasion. If the time of arguments about what NPOV means for the JW area is not yet past, then perhaps the time for a JW project has not yet come. Tom Haws 19:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know where you are going with all of that because I can't make heads nor tails of it. I was invited here concerning an article CRITICAL of the JWs! The glue that holds the JWs together is the publishing arm and it does have a corporate structure. The local churches have individual local structures that are similar to the Church of Christ, Congregationalist and many other non-pyramid church organizations. If you want to debate beliefs to say what is "right" or "wrong" according to your own POV belief, this is NOT the place to do it. The JWs are entitled to their own beliefs just like everyone else. For the record I am not, never have been a member of the JWs and neither have I subscribed or been a regular reader of their publications. I don't believe their beliefs but I am not attacking their beliefs because beliefs cannot be attacked by reason of the fact that they are beliefs and not scientific theories! MPLX/MH 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am disheartened that we have gotten off on the wrong foot, and I apologize for my provocative words toward you, MPLX. It sounds like you have a great grasp of the needs of the Wikipedia and possible ways to improve presentation in this area. I honestly look forward to having you as a colleague as we work through these questions and many more to come. I will learn a lot, I can tell already. That is what is so wonderful to me about the Wikiipedia. Tom Haws 20:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Taking the Lead. Well, the fact is that the chairman of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses used to be the President of the Watchtower etc., but that has been abolished since a number of years. I personally do not know the members of the Governing Body, and could name just a few. I'm sure there are Witnesses who could not name any of them. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses have a great respect for those who take this kind of responsibility, but do not view them as overly important persons. The Presidents might have been prominent in the development of the organization, but not leaders. Their leader is one, and he is not human. You might say the presidents of old did take the lead, but, according to them, all mature Christians are supposed to take the lead, for example, in "showing honor to one another." (Romans 12:10) Several Christians in each congregation are "presiding" or "taking the lead" in the congregation, in fulfilling the duties of every Christian, really, to be proclaimers of God's kingdom. (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13; Hebrews 13:7, 17; Isaiah 61:2)
Defending A Neutral Point of View and Accuracy. You can never have a completely neutral point of view. I think that is why you have come up with your own kind of neutral point of view. That is a solution, but, let's face it - Jehovah's Witnesses are controversial in many respects, and due to my profession, I have defended them many times. (That is why I know so much about them.) There will always be people who think Jehovah's Witnesses are like this or that, ought to be doing this or that, are doing this or that. Some of it is true, some is not. (What's not true might sooner or later disappear thanks to diligent editors who can defend their changes.) Jehovah's Witnesses in particular are very careful that what is said and written about them is as correct as possible, and also what they write themselves, otherwise they are due to encounter unnecessary problems and criticism when they do their work of trying to engage people in Bible conversations, meet together peacefully, or just wish to have their religious views respected.
Suggestion. One idea might be to have one page outlining who Jehovah's Witnesses say they are, and another one where other people can say who they think Jehovah's Witnesses are. (Granted, of course, who is who is always a matter of great difficulty when it comes to the Internet.)
--Porthos 20:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Porthos I tried to find your User page to learn something about you, but I could not find one. I did gather the impression (right or wrong?) from your last comments that you are an attorney or work in the office of an attorney. Having some familiarility with the legal mindset, that is not a bad way to treat this topic, with one exception. Instead of doing a pro and con version, why not treat it the way you suggested by allowing the JW version to be the bedrock with a legal interpretation based upon well documented sourced and referenced facts to be the additional (not alternative or confrontational) version. In that way a JW may present a rosy picture of let's say, Russell, while the newspaper and legal documents of the day concerning his alleged fraud can also be inserted without drawing further conclusions. Let the reader decide what they wish to make of the facts as presented. MPLX/MH 21:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Give each one his own arena! Jehovah's Witnesses are notoriously unwilling to cooperate with persons who claim they are liars or fools. But even they are interested in trying to understand who other people think they are, or those who disagree with them, and I'm sure such contributions would be welcomed with open hearts. They meet them whenever they conduct their preaching activities, and I have never encountered a Witness who would not allow another person to have his own opinion on matters, even belief. That is, for that matter, something Jehovah's Witnesses have fought for in numerous court cases in several countries, have pleaded for before governments, as well as cooperated with other organizations to reach a point where everybody has the right to believe what they want to and to exercise that belief. --Porthos 21:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, which we all know is absolute and non-negotiable, is not all that easy to understand. Reading the official policy document a few times helps. It has been a few months now since I last read it, and I think it's time I did so again carefully and leisurely. I invite all of you to do the same. One surprising nugget you might find is that there is no Neutral Point of View! Go figure; strange but true. Go see what I mean. I will be back after I have done the same. Tom Haws 21:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses and governments

Just a quick note to say I think this article is coming along nicely. Tom Haws 18:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses literature

I have started this miniproject and would appreciate any help I could get. george 23:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality wants Jehovah's Witnesses brouchures to be deleted. george 02:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am creating a page to combine the articles on the Aid to Bible Understanding, Insight on the Scriptures and Reasoning From the Scriptures. I intend to label the page: Reference works of Jehovah's Witnesses I beleive this will help to cut down on page profileration as would condensing the JW's brochures idea into a single page naming & describing these publications and their intent, rather than my initial idea of an article for each brochure. george 23:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A VfD

Hi there! You may have noted that one of your pages got nominated for deletion; one of your members requested an explanation on your talk page, so here's why. The page in question is a mere collection of links (specifically, a list of pages on a single side; WikiPedia shouldn't serve as an index for your own site), and as such is not an encyclopedic article.

I've taken a look at your project page, and would like to place two remarks... first, you currently have a lot more categories than actual articles - that's the wrong way around. And second, if your project is going to involve a lot of text from flyers and/or the Bible, I'd like to suggest that such material belongs in WikiSource rather than here.

Yours, Radiant! 08:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions. We are just getting started as a project (though individually some of us have a lot of Wikipedia experience) and we appreciate your input and any assitance you can give. Tom Haws 19:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

I've been impressed with the projects' focus, just wanted to say great job. More articles are needed however, for the project to be seen as more credible and effective. May want to divide and conquer more. -Visorstuff 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A compliment! Thanks! Tom Haws 02:07, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
As a newcomer, I'd like to pose a question. Do we have set forth some guidelines of what to include in the Doctrines article as opposed to the Practice article? In general, I'd expect that in the former, we'd talk about beliefs, justifications, criticisms. In the latter, we'd talk about how things manifest themselves in practice. For instance, with the discussion of Blood, in the doctrine section, we can talk about what is the view of blood, the line of reasoning used to support the doctrine, brief mention of counter-arguements (no need to talk about blood cards here). In the practice section, list out how the doctrinal views manifest themselves in real-life decisions. Distinction from whole blood and blood fractions, "bloodless medicine," "blood cards," etc. If we establish this at a high level, this can really help to clean up both pages. Thoughts? Thanks. boche 01:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that's a good way to go ahead. --K. 01:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" recommendation

I recommend that 1971's "Aid to Bible Understanding" not be included since it was replaced by "Insight On the Scriptures" as the encyclopedic reference work used by Jehovah's Witnesses and does not appear in their Watchtower Library CD.

Also, six articles in the 1988 English-language edition of the Insight volumes - Destruction, Gomorrah, Judgment Day, Repentance, Resurrection, and Sodom - were written prior to the current view regarding the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. That view appears in "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of Jume 1, 1988, pages 30-31, and implies that those people are not to be resurrected.

This resulted in a 1989 revision of 1982's "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," in Chapter 21, pages 178-180 (paragraphs 8-11, including the picture on page 178). Although the Live Forever book was replaced in 1995 by "Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life," it still appears on the CD and is still readily available. Additionally, all foreign-language editions of the Insight volumes, which were written after 1988, reflect this view. For whatever reason, the English-language print and CD editions have *not* been revised. Please be aware of that when you compile your information.

[edit] JW-related articles

I've added a fairly comprehensive list of articles about and related to JW. Hopefully this will help those knowledgeable on the subject to improve them, as some are just stubs and others need major cleanups.

I also included articles that have sections on or references to JW. These types of articles are often overlooked, and so are outdated or sometimes plain wrong. Please have a look at them and try to improve the JW references.

BTW, if you don't like the hierarchy I've created, you're welcome to change it. ;) --K. 10:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppositional Views

I think this is a BAD idea. I can go into several reasons. Most prominent in that it polarizes the subject matter; and I question if neutrality can be maintained with such a page existing. In other words, for people who think "subject x" is only for "opposers views" and therefore should be on the "opposers page," we will fail to provide neutral content. And conversely, such a page simply opens up a can of worms to include every polemic about the JWs and catagorize it as somehow neutral and belonging in the WP. If people want to read opinion pieces, they can google. This should be an encyclopedia. Thoughts? boche 07:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't believe the page has survived as long as it had. I'm happy to put it up for VfD. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 14:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Let's do that, before it gets a life of it's own, and other pages start getting skewed. Thanks. boche 00:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

These views should be implemented into the "normal" pages. The german wikipedia made some effort to combine all info.--Mini 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and comments

Moved from Project page.

Wasn't this article (Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society) deleted once before? At any rate, it is similar in content to "Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2" which was deleted after a VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2 for an archive of the vote. --DannyMuse 15:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have two thoughts: either the page should be adapted to be a "List of"-type article, or the information should be merged into Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced of Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses being a valid article anyway. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of where Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses could be a viable article is to focus on movements and efforts to counter JWs. So for instance, I think Catholic and Protestant responses have been different. And these differ from responses from Orthodox churches, as well as responses to missionaries in tribal cultures. What I think is plain wrong is to try moving factual items there that have been used for polemical purposes. Then it becomes essentially a tract on why JWs are bad and wrong. boche 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We need a project plan

This WikiProject badly needs a plan to follow. Have a look at some of the other WikiProjects to see how focussed others are.

Right now the JW-related articles are a bit of a mess. Many articles are way too long, there is a lot of duplication, and some articles have very little information. Unfortunately there aren't any good examples on Wikipedia of articles on particular religions to model off. So let's get to work and make the JW-related articles the standard for other projects to model off! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure

This a proposal for an eventual structure to work towards:

About Jehovah's Witnesses

Literature

Jehovah's Witnesses-related

Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I think combining doctrines and practices is an interesting idea. I've had struggles trying to think, now should this be in doctrines or practices? There is certainly a fuzzy border between the two. However, it still can work well, as long as everyone views doctrine as specifying the belief especially how it is stated and justified in literature. And practices, where we see the doctrines in practice. Blood is a perfect example, where in doctrines, you can specify the view of blood, scriptural justification, etc. In practices you talk about blood cards, legal issues, etc. But, I'm not opposed to merging them. It'll be a long article however. If the "Opposition" page covers the holocaust, and legal battles, I think that that would justify its existence. Keeping legal instruments and organization separate might still be useful, since they serve two different purposes. The org structure is there for operational purposes, whereas the legal instruments are there for legal reasons. There is some overlap, but it seems possible to keep them separate. Again, the main issue with separation seems to be that it is good if it can help with article length, and also that it has a definable and distinctive purpose of its own that doesn't overlap significantly with something else. boche 09:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard to separate doctrines and practices, and I think there will forever be overlap if the articles are separate. I think the length can be short if the article just lists the doctrines/practices with a short summary, with a link to a sub article about it. Most JW teachings are quite in depth, because they differ so from what an outsider already knows, so a lot needs explaining. And if the sub article is too big, it can be split out if necessary.
With the organization/legal articles, the reason I propose combining is that originally, the legal article was there to cover the WTB&S, IBSA, etc. Now these have their own articles, I think there isn't enough info to warrant a separate article, but it fits in well with the discussion about the organisation of JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I like what you're after. Tom Haws and I tried to get this going a while back but couldn't muster up enough support and it was clearly too big a project for just the two of us. He then started this page and we got a few more involved, but interest waned. And of course, reaching a consensus is always a challenge. That being said, now may be the time. You might want to peruse this link for some additional ideas. Keep up the good work! --DannyMuse 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and I hope this time the project will get off the ground. It would be good to get some more editors onboard too. Please call all your mates! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is a good start. I would suggest we put a proposed outline on the main project page, and then we edit and debate it to death until we have the blue print, and then begin organizing the existing articles with this structure in mind. We'll need to go through several iterations, since for instance, when we merge practices and beliefs, we'll have one huge article if we don't break out dedicated sections for eschatology for instance. boche 06:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be a section on the the scandals of the watchtower somewhere. If not a page.--Greyfox 05:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Good outline for a plan, but I have a thought about some movement of information. A big thing I notice is how the main page about Jehovah's Witnesses is littered with a lot of historical related talk that isn't neccessarily topical. I see a lot of outdated beliefs referred to and talk about when this or that doctrinal understanding changed. Shouldn't that be in the article History of Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least kept to the history section of the page? The way it's woven throughout the main article, distracts from the point and it gives a very subtle but clear negative undertone (and wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased articles). I think we should consider cleaning up this stuff & doing it quickly.--Ando por Fe 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses template.

I think it would be a good idea to come up with a template for JWs that can guide a reader through the articles about JW. Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Student movement and JW history

I've been looking up stuff on the Bible Student movement, which is quite interwined with the early history of the JWs.

I don't know how much it fits with this Project, but it has led to such stuff as Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups. Maybe the bible student stuff should also be covered by this project ? (At least the historical part) Flammifer 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, only that it expands an already big project. But hey, the more the merrier! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I've read the bible students pages in the past, and I'm unsure there is much to add on the JW end. And the JW articles, I'm sad to say, presents a big enough challenge. boche 06:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses: Bible Chronology

I mentioned on the primary JW discussion that there seems to be some fundamentals missing from the project. One of these is their version of Bible Chronology. Uberpenguin recommended that I start an article. I think it would add needed context for their belief. Because they view Bible Chronology as superior in every respect to Archeological Chronology, and because Bible Chronology is very subjective in many cases, their beliefs about the timings of certain events and how they arrive at these timings serves to define them as a distinctive religion.

For instance: Their preaching work is considered a fulfillment of prophecy because we are living in the time of the end, we are living in the time of the end because Jesus returned invisibly in (1874/1914) and began to rule in Heaven in (1878/1914), because Daniel 4 has a second fulfillment that extends to 1914 if you start from when Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 607 BC. How did they arrive at 607 BC? How did they arrive at 1914?

The same sort of thing can be done with their claim to divine authority being vested in the small group of Bible Students who were still active in 1918/1919. How did they arrive at 1918? Their claim that these are the last days is built on their Bible Chronology and this chronology is so adamantly upheld that to publicly refute or debate against it would lead to a Judicial Committee (a "trial" before three elders) and, without abject repentance, probable disfellowshipping. Though this may seem a POV statement, it is entirely accurate according to their publications.

The other area that is missing is a discussion of punishable offenses, such as homosexuality, viewing pornography, fornication, attending other churches, arguing against Church doctrine, active participation in the military, membership in the YMCA, and many more. These offenses could be put under some sort of "Behavior Denounced By Jehovah's Witnesses" heading in a perfectly NPOV manner. Each can have references attached to demonstrate the view maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. Just throwing the idea out for consideration.--Evident 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't mark edits like that as minor (just saying, not that I really care). As to a list of offenses, there's something like it in the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article (go to the "Disfellowshipping" section).Tommstein 04:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage conventions proposals

[edit] Use of "the Society"

Witnesses often use the term the Society when referring to the spiritual leadership rather than the legal structure. To make the articles clear to non-Witnesses, we need a convention on its use (if at all) and definition. Ideas? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad: I respectfully recommend not using the term except where it is defined as a JW term. The Society refers to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. or the products of its publishing efforts, not to the spiritual leadership. None of the Governing Body (the spiritual leadership) have any direct role in the affairs of the Society. It is argued that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is the spiritual leadership. However, in fact, no Jehovah's Witness alive (including members of the Governing Body) even knows who all the Faithful and Discreet Slave are. They know how many partake at the Memorial, but they don't know how many do so "legitimately."
The de facto spiritual leadership is the Governing Body. All authority among Jehovah's Witnesses ultimately rests with them.--Evident 04:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Your statement implies a solution. The expression "the Society" should only be used when referring to the actual, legal societies. It would be better if the term "the Society" itself were never used (unless such usage, as a reference to the corporations, is completely, blatantly clear from the immediate context, although even then I can't envision a usage of that form that wouldn't sound confusing), and terms like "the Watchtower Society" (when talking about the corporations generically) or "the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Wherever" when talking about a specific corporation. All talk about spiritual stuff should be referred to by some other appropriate name, like "the Governing Body," "the Faithful and Discreet Slave" (nevermind the fact that they don't actually do anything significant, it's all about the dozen guys on the Governing Body), or whatever is really intended.66.158.232.37 07:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The above post by IP address 66.158.232.37 was really by me, Tommstein. Wikipedia has been having a stroke for an hour or two, and somehow it actually posted that, but with just my IP address.Tommstein 07:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is the point of the above that "the Society" isn't used to refer to the GB? At least in Australia, "the Society" is the most common way to refer to the organisational leadership as a whole. Is it different elsewhere? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Konrad, It is often referred to that way by JWs. My understanding was this article is for JWs and non-JWs. JWs have been instructed that they should not refer to teachings as coming from the Society because, in truth, the Society only prints and distributes the teachings. The teachings are under the direct control of the Governing Body, who claim to represent the Faithful and Discreet Slave. So, reference to the Society would only be nebulously understood inside JWs and would not be clearly understood at all outside JWs.--Evident 12:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
No no, that wasn't my point at all. I was just stating how I think we should use the terms on Wikipedia. "The Society" probably means the same thing to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere, but their terminology is irrelevant unless your audience is only Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe I didn't explain what I was thinking very well though, so ask away if you wish for clarification.Tommstein 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The article has to be understandable by non-JWs. It seems pretty clear to me that "the Society" shouldn't be used in these articles to refer to the GB or FDS. I'll update the project page to reflect this.
Another problem I see is whether to use GB or FDS when refering to doctrinal changes. Officially it's the FDS, but since that includes the old anointed sister in your local cong, it doesn't make a lot of sense! Can we have a policy on what to use, or will it have to be a per situation thing? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was trying to say about "the Society." Did it come across differently? As to the new problem, I would recommend using "Governing Body" unless what is actually intended is "Faithful and Discreet Slave." Regardless of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about being led by the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (by what, osmosis?), that ain't how it actually works, it's really the Governing Body that runs the joint. The "Faithful and Discreet Slave" doesn't decide on beliefs or do anything else, regardless of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe; if they don't tow the line determined by the Governing Body, they will be kicked out just like anyone else. Since these articles aren't targeted at Jehovah's Witnesses (at least exclusively), we have to say exactly what we mean, and most of the time, that's the Governing Body.Tommstein 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
<--- I know what you mean, but the articles will need to acknowledge that the Witnesses *say* the FDS leads them, even if no-one can explain how. But you're right-- most of the time, the Governing Body will be the right term to use. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term society to me ment Brooklyn Bethel, GB, and Watchtower included and should be avoided because it would not be understandable to non jw's or some jw' for that matter. My opinion --Greyfox 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Specific Publications

I have started a discussion on inclusion of articles on specific publications. I do not want to repeat it all here, but I think it belongs to the project page as it would involve two articles (The Secret of Family Happiness and My Book of Bible Stories). I find it quite important as it has broad implications. Soukie 12:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you want articles for all those books etc. which come from a book publishing company? There are way too much to include.--Mini 12:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, in the discussion on Family Happiness I was arguing that having a separate article for every publication published by WTB&TS is not practical and that it misses the point. Soukie 14:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I can live either way. The thing we shouldn't do, however, is just have articles for some random books and not others. I think it should be an all-or-nothing proposition, regardless of which way it goes.Tommstein 06:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
While I don't think there should be random articles, there can be articles on specific publications without a need for one on every publication ever released. Publications that contain official teachings (Elder's book, Revelation, Insight, etc) should have their own articles, as well as those that used to (Studies in the Scriptures, etc), and those used in public ministry probably should too. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
To Time consuming to do a page per book besides the society usualy come out with two books each year most of the time to replace an older one thats out of date. I think it sould all be on one page with a small summary. If they want to know more they can get the book there all on ebay or at their local hall.--Greyfox 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The point isn't whether it is time-consuming or not; if the article can be encyclopedia and notable, it should be included. However, we want to concentrate on the most important articles first, so a simple stub will suffice for the short-term. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belief restriction

"Statements about what JWs believe would naturally cite JW publications."

So no expert scholar of JW can be a source? Are these articles only reprints of JW publications? (SEWilco 07:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Certainly these articles should include expert scholars as source, but as far as I know, there are none. Certainly there are many ex-Witnesses who make claims, but none (even Raymond Franz) would be an "expert scholar". Do you know of any? Their works would be highly appreciated! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Go away for a few months, and look what happens! This project is starting to look positively positive. Maybe I better stay away longer.  :-) Good work, people. Tom Haws 06:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Konrad West has done most of it. Buy him a beer.Tommstein 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Mormon. How about a banana split? Tom Haws 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd take that over a beer any day of the week. Of course, I'd take a banana split over just about anything, and just about anything over a beer.Tommstein 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
<grin> Tom Haws 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for JW structure

It has been more than 3 weeks since the vote for/against the proposed structure began, and still only 6 out 19 of the project participants have voted. It would really be great to get everyone's vote, and preferably some outsiders too, so that we can get the project moving, using the new structure or not.

So the vote doesn't just go on forever, I would like to place a closing date for voting of 0:00 UTC, Friday, 25 November 2005. This is 7 days from now, leaving the vote open for one month, which should be sufficient for all participants to have their say.

I propose the following:

  • Votes timestamped 0:01 UTC and after on 25 November 2005 will not be accepted, and members not having cast a vote before then will be counted as abstaining.
  • Votes will be tallied after the close of voting, with abstain votes discarded, and a majority declared based on for vs. against.
  • If a majority votes for, the new structure will be adopted, and work shall begin to adapt the current articles to the new structure.
  • If a majority votes against, discussion will commence on an alternative structure.
  • If there is a tie, discussion will commence on whether to modify the proposed structure so as to be adopted, or whether to develop an alternative structure.

If no one objects, I will place these on the vote section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] link on main page

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nationsthis needs a link from the main article to it and from it back to main article.--Greyfox 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'm not sure what if any particular importance the story has to Jehovah's WItnesses, but I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article, and it seems to summarize nicely the story and how different religious groups react to it. I'm not certain what you are looking for from project members here, but the only thing I could suggest in more in-depth info on how different groups react to it, incorporate their perceived morals/lessons from the story, and any practices or rituals it has inspired. To Jehovah's Witnesses, however, a comparatively minor group in your proposed expansion, this story reflects to them God protecting His worshippers to sanctify His holy name (make holy his reputation) and to exalt Him over the Babylonian (false) gods. While the story is significant to Witnesses, its cultural impact in my perception is basically an example, particularly for youths, of obedient worshippers of God standing up to adversity or persecution regardless of the immediate consequences.
I'd invite others to respond with their thoughts. - CobaltBlueTony 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What CobaltBlueTony said. I can't really think of any other special application that Jehovah's Witnesses apply to the story.Tommstein 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is probably roughly the same interpretation as most other Christian and Jewish groups. I simply don't know all the interpretations of the story, so I figured I'd ask wherever a WikiProject existed to try to avoid leaving out someone's point of view. Thanks for your input. If you want to help further, you can help edit the page (see the to-do list) or support its nomination for collaboration of the week. --Tetraminoe 15:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on the following

Please take a look at the following thread:

and see if you want to make a comment. Thanks. 66.167.139.86 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC).


[edit] About Editing Guidelines

I have some questions. I think better quality articles here can be produced without introducing a biasedness in any direction, but rather, a more accurate view of the religion. Why are scriptural references discouraged? I think it would difuse many arguments & make JW's seem less like they're "brainwashed" when it comes to showing why we believe something. And why does this place use the term "interpretation" when it probably makes more sense to use the term "understanding"? The word "interpretation" has come to have a very negative connotation when it comes to religion, and "understanding" reveals a more reasonable attitude towards scriptures that is less dogmatic and more flexible. Historically, Jehovah's Witnesses have been flexible and adjusted their beliefs whenever they realized they'd misunderstood what the Bible said (The dogmatic people then leave the religion and complain about past misunderstandings). Religions following interpretations don't tend to adjust their beliefs. Plus, how many times have we even heard circuit overseers and elders say "the current understanding is..."? It might sound like semantics, but there is a small but significant difference between the two words.

Unless I misunderstand something, the purpose of this collection of pages is to educate the world about Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way. How else can we do it but to let them know that what we believe comes from the Bible and not from men. Half of these pages talk about our beliefs almost like it's the Governing Body thinking for God and thinking for us. That's not the case, is it? Although, that is what apostates like to convince people.--Ando por Fe 06:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its weaker from a verifiability POV to use scriptures instead of Watchtower references. After all, Jehovah's Witnesses believe what they do because of what they learn from Watchtower articles explaining the Bible, not simply by reading the Bible themselves and coming to any conclusion they feel like. Jehovah's Witnesses typically pride themselves on their unity through the "faithful and discreet slave". I agree with "understand", i think its generally better however not to use the exact phrase every time to explain something, so using a variety of words to explain the relationship between a belief and a scripture seems advised. These are guidelines after all, not hard and fast rules.
Though "interpretation" might be a bit loaded. I wouldn't agree its being unwieldy so. The question of have Jehovah's Witnesses been flexible is one that be presented with verifiable references in a NPOV way.
Btw, earlier you mentioned the history page. I added it entirely as a stub, and it desperately needs help and love. Please feel free to pull up your sleeves and tackle this page as you'd like. Just remember to reference stuff! Happy editing. :) joshbuddy 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a good place to mention that I am really pleased with what has happened in the past year on this project. It is very commendable. I hope you can appreciate it, Andoporfe (I walk by faith). Welcome to the project. Tom Haws 04:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I will try to take the opportunity in the coming months to read some of the articles and give an opinion. Tom Haws 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and am still learning the policies and basics. However, I tend to agree with Ando por Fe. The Bible is the basis for our belief. The Watchtower et al provides explanation and clarification but the Bible is the basis. Likely there should be a balance between references from both the Bible and CCJW publications. Critics would, I'm sure, prefer to see only CCJW references rather than God's Word. Also, I'm willing to assist with some editing but my time (like most of us) is limited due to a heavy workload elsewhere. 1GoodNews 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ando por Fe and 1GoodNews, all organised religions form their beliefs from a combination of scripture (the Bible in the case of JWs) and an official interpretation as given by an authoritative person or body (the F&DS, in the case of JWs). Presenting only the scripture implies that a religion's interpretation is the only, or the correct one, which is inappropriate for WP. I hope you see the reasoning behind this guideline, which is, after all, only a guideline. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational Template

A new template is under development in order to guide readers through the large number of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Please feel free to contribute / add / edit or suggest any changes. Many Thanks - Lucille S 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned participants

I've noted that the users Tommstein and Central have been idefinitely blocked on the list of participants. I propose simply removing their names from the list, but did not want to do so arbitrarily without concensus. - CobaltBlueTony 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think being up to date on who is actively involved is a good idea. Since those two are not allowed to be involved anymore, removal is a good idea. Duffer 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge unnecessary

Merging the doctrines and practices into one article is unnecessary, and makes the resultant article too long. BenC7 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible study

I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses - to focus on self-evident, factual presentations of the critics and their declared objectives.

Thoughts? - CobaltBlueTony 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lucille's statement that the "Family Integrity & Freedom of Mind" section (since deleted) which I contributed to "Controversies..." filled a glaring vacancy. The objection most frequently cited by critics of Jehovah's Witnesses deserves more than two lines; therefore, should be restored. It seems logical to me that it should be on the "Controversies..." page, since there is little difference between controversy and criticism; that is, controversy exists because critics speak up. Therefore it may be a case of splitting hairs to create a seperate page.
It should also be noted that where the use of cult mind control is proposed, "self-evident presentations" are insufficient, rather presentations must be made in such a way as to first disclose to the average reader what cult mind control is, then why critics state that it is being employed in a certain context. If "self-evident presentations" were sufficient, cult mind control would not be possible. According to authors such as Lifton, Singer, Hassan, Goldhammer, and others, cult mind control is real. Therefore "self-evident presentations" (that is, those that do not include disclosure of the nature of complex dynamics) are not sufficient. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, question?

Are you guys/gals sure a bunch of wikipedia pages on Jehovahs Witnesses is really...okay? O_o I mean, have you spoken to others about it yet? From what ive seen, most things I read about Witnesses on the net are either too negative or too postive, and people tend to argue alot and it just breaks my heart D: In my opinion Witnesses shouldnt get so involved on the internet, but thats just my opinion. But im not arguing, just a kid whose wonder about this, thats all :/

An online encyclopedia is here for people who want to get information on a certain topic. Wikipedia has policies that state how the article needs to be written, for example that it must represent a neutral point of view. I'm not sure what you mean by "speaking to others" about it... Not all of the people who are editing the JW pages are JWs. BenC7 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Not all of the people who are editing the JW pages are JWs." ...Yikes o_o Okay than, thanks for your response.
Jehovah's Witnesses, approximately 6 million in number, live in almost every land on this earth. They certainly deserve to be represented in Wikipedia articles. Those of us who engage in writing articles about this religion are, undoubtedly, biased in one way or another. Nevertheless, Wikipedia guidelines require that we edit from a neutral point of view; that is, we may quote published sources, regardless of the veracity of such sources. Jehovah's Witnesses have many supporters and many detractors; the arguable issues should be discussed only in terms of published sources. --RogerK 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Jehovahs Witness publications insist that everything published is verifiable through the scriptures. They also insist their constituents continually test this to see if they are in "the truth". I did some of what I consider original research in order to comply with the Jehovah Witnesses scriptural challenge to continue testing. I have later found that others do existwho are equally convinced as I am about my personal discovery. I am convinced that what I discerned through my scriptural inquiry will eventually become common knowledge as it reveals the man of lawlessness. I am equally convinced that it may not fit the Wikiproject editing guidelines.

So here is my request:

Would a responsible and capable wiki editor, a Baruch please adjust what I have written in the following so that it complies:

The man of lawlessness revealed

Thanks

What you have written is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I would suggest that you speak with a counsellor. BenC7 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Jesus Article - Witness View

There has been a series of articles started on the subject of the Death of Jesus. There is a dedicated section for Jehovah's Witness belief on this event namely in denial of the cross. Currently the srticle has some dodgy references, mainly sources that are critical of beliefs used for defining JW doctrine on the cross??!! Can some of you help fix this?? Thanx Jamie 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I have founded some new categories, which I think would be very fit and helpful for all. The way of categorizing the articles needed some tidy-up. I believe that the main category is to be kept short. So it is done in other topics that comprices many articles. Summer Song 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_8f7c.html"