Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 , 27, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34

The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

1 Biased editing will ruin these articles
- 1.1 Proposal for compromise
2 Other topics for inclusion
3 My spelling change
4 Biographies of individual Witnesses
5 "Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses"
6 "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
7 Seasons in the Sun
8 Please post concise, ontopic replies
9 Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections
10 Proposed Policy for New Arrivals
11 Add a section on disfellowshipping?
12 "Human Rights and Freedoms"
13 The term "being"
14 Spirit beings on earth?
15 Linking to copyrighted works

Biased editing will ruin these articles

Wikipedia neutral point of view editing is my biggest contention here. Aside from all of the fish, flannel and straw, aside from all of my tangental conversations, the main and fundamental objective here is to edit in accordance with Wikipedia NPOV policy, to be fair, to avoid name-calling, slandering, blaming, edit warring, endless reverting, and so on and so forth. This is not your platform to "expose the truth" about anyone or anything. Agendas are not welcome here. They do not represent good faith editing. If you cannot accept the academic principle that others' views about an issue are equally as relevant and, in line with Wikipedia's standards, hold more weight if they are the main perception than if they are a narrowly held view from a select few, they you do not belong here.

Let's look at this through an example. Let's say we were to be editors on the Republican Party article (one of the two main political parties in the U.S., if you didn't know). If someone kept making edits claiming that the policies and views represented negative and sinister goals of the party, they would be summarily dismissed. Not because the factual measure of these assertions was correct (and who knows, maybe some of them are?), but because such lengthy and diatribe-like viewpoints should not be part of a main article, or even an overpowering part of a related article. The article is meant to define and describe the subject, not expose each and every viewpoint related to the topic. Even though a significant number of American citizens disagree with the Rebublican Party, their views are best represented in the Democratic Party article, or another political party or organization article, or on articles that are focused on all sides of issues rather than those holding a particular view of them.

Now there are two types of people who disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses. There is the general population, which is already broken up into various religious groups or who lean towards a particular belief system or philosophy, and among those who know something about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, the vast majority of them are not interested or convinced enough to actively align themselves with them. The other, much much smaller group, are those who are either former members, those who were raised within the religious group but were never baptized, and those who see the group as a cult, threat, or other danger and actively camapign against it. These people feel strongly about various issues and actively promote their views, being, of course, genuinely convinced of their accuracy and perceptions.

Proposal for compromise

What has to happen with this set of articles is this: the views of the organization(s) of Jehovah's Witnesses are presented neutrally, without constant counterpoints added (which are repeatedly objected to, depending on their wording, content, or frequency, or even on negative interactions with the editor), and without topics within the article worded in a way that reflects a bias, prejudice, or other opinion. The notion that individuals within the group may feel differently is not objected to here; only the attempt to incessantly shove these views into the article as if they represented a factual and provable scenario. By all means, please create an article that outlines each and every objection, and note at the top of every Jehovah's Witness article the link for the article or articles which present the dissenting views, which can include the propensity of dissent and the outside scholars who may address this point or these points. Additionally, a main article that reviews the dissenting views by topic, likewise following the NPOV standard, can be made, providing links to the related dissenting views articles. This is where oppositional or dissenting resources can be summarized or impartially reviewed but not promoted or otherwise violating the NPOV standard.

We can only end the reversions and edit wars not by forcing our interpretation of the ideas presented, not by laying accusations based on our personal point of view or disparaging other editors, but by sticking CLOSELY to the NPOV standards and accepting compromises even when we disagree or object sharply to the information presented. - CobaltBlueTony 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony,

I can agree with your second paragraph but not the first. If the main Wikipedia article on JWs is only supposed to reflect the views of the JW Organization, then it would not be NPOV. Just because it's harder to be NPOV when one is writing about a controversial religious group does not mean we should abandon the effort. I agree that accepting compromises is important, however. How about this? Let's identify sections that we think fail the NPOV test? I'll start: I think the Eschatology section has some great sections but I'd say it needs to reflect more of the JW position. Any other observations of where we could acheive balance? DTBrown

DTBrown, the article is not to present the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, but explain their views in NPOV. The countless insertions of opposing and divergent views that cannot be proven to be held by the majority of Witnesses is POV editing. We are not trying to debate the validity of points of belief, or the legitimacy; only what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. And we need to be strict and clear on following the three tenets of Wikipedia sourcing: reliable source material, previously published source material, and verifiable source material. For example, material aobut the Governing Body could be supplemented by a single statement from a book by Ray Franz, a former GB member and therefore notable resource, that might refute, contradict, or otherwise address it. Longer statements may be best suited to a separate article, or a section of an article which covers all dissenting views with resourcing that follows the aforementioned WP three tenets.

The balance we all seek is placing divergent viewpoints in their proper priority, based on the percentage of members or former members which hold each individual view. Saying something like, "a small number of disfellowshipped/disenfranchised individuals strongly maintain..." notes both the quanitiy and status of the opinion-holders, as well as the level to which they make their assertions which contradict the main group's stated views.

I like your proposal for an NPOV test. We must make sure that we are keeping to the topic of trying to define the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses without preaching them, and without chipping away at them with opposing views. I have strong hope that a balance can be acheived, and that dissenting opinions properly sourced will have their place in this broad subject matter. - CobaltBlueTony 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've unilaterally declared what we are to talk about in the article, I'll remind you that the title of the article is "Jehovah's Witnesses", not "Current Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses", so any and every thing about them is topical in the article, not just the subset of topics that you wish to present.Tommstein 07:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That section does reflect the Jehovah's Witness position, tracking how said position has changed up and down and left and right over the ages. If you think it could use a final subsection entitled 'present views' or something like that though, I don't see a problem with that per se, but I think it would probably be repetitive in light of the Beliefs sections. And didn't we just have about 19 Witnesses claiming that a whole paragraph had to go because (among the 60 other reasons they threw at the wall) part of one sentence could be found elsewhere in the article, nevermind that it was even in an entirely different context?Tommstein 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical that present views should be presented first, with history of the various positions held following. Most people want to know the here-and-now; more studious individuals will read on. Even if you want to stress the history, putting it first will only drive away those looking for the fast-and-easy answer. Plus, Wikipedia seems to follow this general pattern, that of describing the current situation with any given topic, then explaining the history and possibly how it reached the current state, if known and reliably referenced. - CobaltBlueTony 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical that history would be presented chronologically. I wish to see your proof that "Most people want to know the here-and-now," seeing as you now claim to speak for everybody. It also seems more logical to work up through the history from the beginning to the present one time, rather than presenting all current views, and then starting over from the dawn of time and developing the current views all over again.Tommstein 07:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein, why must you stir up contention? What purpose does it to declare that I claim to speak for everybody, even if you sincerely believe it? It is inflammatory, contentious, and only serves to distract from the task at hand. This is precisely the attitude that inhibits real progress. I believe that I am making real steps towards an NPOV set of articles, despite my personal opinions (and religious convictions) regarding you and your views. This is an academic process. We can succeed only if we set aside this tendency to act along those lines and restrict our comments, suggestions, and edits to the task at hand.

I would not suggest beginning at the beginning of time, as it were, inundating the reader with every detail from the get-go, but overview in an NPOV summary, and then expand in subtopics, with redirection to expanded topics and/or dissenting view articles/ sections. Thoughts? - CobaltBlueTony 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, it's pretty standard for WP articles to start with, after the intro paragraph, a history/biography section. Also as Tomm noted, the article is about JWs in general, not their beliefs (current or otherwise), so the article should give an overview of all aspects of JWs, with the sub articles going into more depth. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you know what inhibits real progress? You wasting 90% of your reply complaining about one meaningless piece of one sentence in a larger paragraph. In any case, the reason I stated that you claimed to speak for everyone was because of your statement "Most people want to know...," like you actually know what most people want. Heck, you're from a little fringe group that preaches isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible; a good argument could be made that non-Witnesses are much more likely to know what "most people want" than a Jehovah's Witness.Tommstein 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is the first phrase in one sentence that stands alone, with no "larger paragraph" to speak of. It seems clear that you intended it to have a more significant effect. This suggest something counterproductive about your participation in this exercise. It was hardly "meaningless." Since those who spend as much time as you do trying to dissect, discredit and dismantle every aspect of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are a much smaller "fringe" group, would that not lead some to discredit your impression of "what others want to know" more than my six and a half million spiritual siblings? We are, after all, still human beings. Konrad's explanation and defense of your stance on this particular point was much more convincing, and appropriately toned for this forum. - CobaltBlueTony 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the first sentence of that, realized that you seem to be lost, and stopped reading.Tommstein 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not the place for exposés and it makes the article unnecessarily unwieldy to pick apart every single point. However, that does not mean that it is appropriate to hide or mask facts simply because they may be unflattering about the religion. To quote the The Watchtower, 15 November 1963, page 688, "It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion."--Jeffro77 03:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My spelling change

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Biographies of individual Witnesses

Are biographies of individual random Witnesses now considered valid "Positive publications"? I ask due to Retcon having just added one. If they are, let's hope that not many Witnesses start writing biographies, because this article is going to get full of them. Biographies aren't about the subject of the article, they're about a person who happened to be a member of the subject of the article. This article is entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses", not "Ragna Dahl" or "Stories of Individual Jehovah's Witnesses", where the book would actually be appropriate.Tommstein 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also not an article entitled "Raymond Franz" and yet there's extensive coverage of one individual's experiences and perspective. Besides you haven't read the book in question, it goes beyond personal biography and details some information relating to how rank-and-file members observe the tenants relating to this article and encompasses more than simply one individual's biography. You should read it sometime Tomm, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. :) Retcon 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a biography of Raymond Franz anywhere, only a book about how the innermost, most secretive parts of the organization work. Even if it were a biography, which it isn't, it wouldn't be about some random Witness, it would be about a former Governing Body member who saw shenanigans few others have, and no others have written publicly about. You should read it sometime, Retcon, you might become enlightened about your religion beyond what they want you to know about them. Now, anyone else have an opinion about loading the page up with biographies of random individual Witnesses besides the guy adding them?Tommstein 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See the additional material relating to document in question. It relates to innerworkings of the preaching activity in various lands. Both are autobiographical in the sense that they are personal observations which form the opinions of their respective authors. Retcon 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tommstein that biographies should only be included as an exception. Signficant people like MacMillan (Faith on the March) and Franz. Not rank and file members. DTBrown

What would be the measuring stick relating to significant people? This individual is significant and provides a female voice and perspective towards the subject. If we are analyzing this group, should it just be from top down, so to speak? The fact that the author details aspects of a central aspect of this faith, preaching, as well as considers the development and refinement of her belief system would seem to merit inclusion. Retcon 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No one's claiming to have a hard fast rule, but Ragna Dahl, whoever the heck she is, is certain to be on the wrong side of it, unless literally everyone is on the right side of it.Tommstein 05:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

She is well known within the online witness community and as her publication has been distributed over the past several years, she is widely known here in the States especially. Retcon 05:33, 12 December 2005

Significant as on the level of MacMillan or Franz. We have lists of Jehovah's Witneses here on Wikipedia. That's where this belongs. Not here on the main page. DTBrown(UTC)

Can you prove any of that? It doesn't matter how well other online Witnesses know her anyway, that doesn't make her important, like, say, Governing Body and ex-Governing Body members. Collecting other Witness groupies doesn't give you encyclopedic importance.Tommstein 06:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses"

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)

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)

Thank you, sir.Tommstein 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"

Retcon, I see you're on a link-adding rampage there, and I don't really have a problem with the links themselves per se, but please look at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. The goal here isn't necessarily to add every link on the Internet related to Jehovah's Witnesses.Tommstein 03:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Simply trying to provide proper and consistent balance in presentation, along with highlighting there are a considerable amount of positive along with negative websites reflecting this website. These links added are consistent with presenting various facets on JWs from various parties in question including some outside sources you'll note which I've also added. User:Retcon 04:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're going as "Truth Seeker"? Regardless, note that the provided link made no mention that polarized articles should have any more links. The degree of polarization of an article is irrelevant; external links can still be found with search engines by those wanting to read 19,000 websites just as well regardless of how polarized an article is. You should remove some of those links, or I'll start adding more critical links to balance your linkfest.Tommstein 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That is of course your perrogative naturally as this is a scholarly work. I do not see the harm of citing additional resources nor can I find any guidelines that cap the number of links an article can cite on any individual page. Frankly there are far more positive rather than negative links towards this subject, they are simply buried by a few savy website developers on the critical sites who saturate the meta tags with several key words, buoying them to the top of search engines, along with the handful of critical db's that obviously have an inflated search rating due to frequency of posts with keywords in them. As JW dbs are less frequent due to more in person association, which the ex-JWs obviously don't have, this causes the excess in critical sites that seem evident. Retcon 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry RetCon but that's just plain ridiculous. You greatly overestimate the simplicity of rankings, and the ability to manipulate them. Regardles, there are significantly more anti-JW sites. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, as you're on the other side of the fence, I can appreciate why you would say that, and who knows you may be right when the final numbers come in. Definitely there are not near the number of JW sites as there use to be after 11/99 when they were discouraged from having their own sites. That said, this is exactly how the search engines process and prioritize view metatags with common search terms. DB's are especially notorious across the board of observing this practice. Retcon 05:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how my being on "the other side of the fence" affects my knowledge of how search engines work. Meta tags do not significantly contribute to rankings in any of the major search engines. See SEO. DB's? Huh? Do you mean databases? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, yes an exaggeration for sure, although I'll still submit a few of the top sites do employ a strategy of that kind. But we can agree to disagree on this point, it is trivial at best. Oh and yeah, I mean discussion boards not databases. Retcon 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with you, Konrad, didn't you know that non-Witnesses had a monopoly on meta tags? Get with the game.Tommstein 06:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Irregardless of semantics regarding the placement of sites in search engines, the fact remains that the links added substantiate and balance out the dearth of opposition sites. I'm sure from your perspective you and Konrad would like nothing better than to have only your opposition sites listed. That said, complaining that suddenly there are "to many links" when supporting sites are now featured is a weak argument. And fortunately, Wikipedia strives to have a balanced approach on all their articles. Retcon 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, you're probably gonna want to look up the definition of "dearth" before using the word again.Tommstein 06:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Retcon & Tommstein: We're getting overloaded with links! DTBrown

I know man, that's what I was saying. But as a famous man once told me, "I do not see the harm of citing additional resources nor can I find any guidelines that cap the number of links an article can cite on any individual page." That's the reason some people have to be given hard fast rules, because otherwise they abuse every inch of freedom they're given and turn it into a mile.Tommstein 06:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You would know Tomm...you are the master of breaking Wiki rules with your long history of personal attacks on various poster's character. How about we compromise and whittle both lists down to 5 website each, for and against, would that please all? Retcon 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh lordy, the irony in the statement "You would know Tomm...you are the master of breaking Wiki rules with your long history of personal attacks on various poster's character" hurts my ribs and kidneys.Tommstein 06:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should set an arbitrary limit. Before all the additions today we had 12 links on the positive side and 14 on the negative. Perhaps we ought to come up with an equal number for both sides. But, scaling back to 5 each is too few, IMO. An aside: adding a bunch of links all at once is bound to rankle people here. Go slower. DTBrown

We definitely shouldn't set an arbitrary limit. But this crap that Retcon did today is bordering on vandalism, almost doubling the number of links. At this point I think that either he can remove some or I'll remove some for him. And we all know that he's gonna cry no matter which links I remove. We're not here to serve as Yahoo's backup, as a directory with links to every site that he likes, especially since some of them are so completely meaningless (the last one I tried to go to was some kind of Spanish personal page that froze my computer).Tommstein 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, your definition of vandalism seems to lack some grounding. I've read some of the posts the past few days...and yeah there are some meaningless links "on both sides" but since this article touches on all types of subjects then having all types of links to correspond with each itemized point seemed like a logical state. However I'll defer to lesser links across the board. (Oh and is your computer still froze?) Retcon 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But where does my definition of "bordering on vandalism" stand? Yeah, my computer is still frozen, but that's only because I left it outside. I'm doing my best to tap these edits straight into the Ethernet jack in Morse code with a paper clip (plastic one at that), so please bear with me.Tommstein 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WP policy is pretty clear: not a repository of links. Some of the links just aren't relevant to the article. E.g. Myriad of Brothers, which is just a list of JW personal sites. Not relevant to an article about JWs.

I think we should establish some criteria for what kind of links should be included. I don't think member's homepages are relevant enough. Apart from the obvious WT.org site, all links should contain significant and quality information about Jehovah's Witnesses beyond what is already in the article. What do you think? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem then will be that Retcon will claim that every single one of his links 'contains significant and quality information about Jehovah's Witnesses beyond what is already in the article.' Oh yeah, and that you're racist for discriminating against individuals' homepages. By the way, I think that the link that you specifically mentioned is the one that froze my computer.Tommstein 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Konrad and Tom, this is not the place for endless links. There are pages out there that give large lists of links; either positive or critical (an example here), one link of those would be sufficient for the less well-known positive or critical material, rather than putting them all here in Wikipedia. It is not necessary to clog up these pages with umpteen links that are of questionable quality and information. Surely the quality and relevance of the links should be the deciding factor, not how many JWs know of them, or what rating they get on Google etc.

I do get the gut feeling that Retcon has specifically planned this move by putting a large number of questionable fluff links on as a way to then (as he has just done) turn around and say "well let's just limit it to five links" as if he's being reasonable, when in fact he desperate to repress any critical information, which appears to me to have been his agenda all along. Reminds me of the power games of dictatorships, where the rulers want to get power over the masses, so they allow immorality, crime, and delinquency to grow and grow, then when the masses are sick of the mess and anarchy, they bring in the draconian police state, saying it is a necessary evil, with the unwitting public not realising it was carefully planned to happen this way all along.

Nope, not the intent meant, and it is best if each Wikipedia editor expresses their own intent and/or motivations rather than others assume, it allieviates misunderstandings. My intent, pure and simple, was to bring some much needed balance. You'll note, dictatorialships typically allow for only one side, and no one here is suggesting that through their comments nor their links. And honestly, placing on an equal plane edits to tone down bias with "immorality, crime and delinquency"....well okay the last one maybe lol. Seriously there is no "draconian police state" proposed except by those that persist on remaining on Wiki 24/7 and mercilessly editing previous users posts without allowing them to at least stand for a time and be discected by the editors and the viewing public at large. It's all about balance, Central, despite any adverse previous experiences you may have had...please leave them when you log on and add contributions that show insight. I don't have to agree with your message, but I should be able to agree with your presentation of the message. Retcon 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe there should be a limit on links, but the quality of the material in the links should be of the best type, well written and accurate. Fluff links should definitely not be found a home here. Can you imagine someone trying to do some detailed research on religions, and then coming across this JW page, and then being directed to some "positive" JW link and getting: "Hello my name is Jenny, my dream is to learn to play the flute and ride a lion in the new system. . . 'Hello Jenny, I like flowers!. . . My pussy cat's called booboo, he loves Jehovah too!'" (you get the picture) Central 13:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing regarding his motives for link-bombing the page. Watch how it happens too. Not that it's gonna fly, since it's such a transparent, kiddy thing to do that two independent people realized it beforehand.Tommstein 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There needn't be a numerical limit on the links, but only the higher-quality pages should be included, regardless of whether they are positive, negative, or neutral toward the Witnesses. Where can I learn more about booboo the cat?--Jeffro77 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that RetCon has any particular agenda other than to have an equal number of positive and negative links. Fundamentally though, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, a link should only be included if it is an official site, or is a notable and quality source of further relevant information about a topic. Many of the links, both positive and negative, aren't relevant for the main JW article, but could go in one of the sub articles. Links for forums for JWs or ex-JWs, IMO, should not be included at all. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that he just wanted an equal number of links, seeing as it was 14-12 before, and he added 10 more. That, or he can't count.Tommstein 11:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how you can possibly hope to write about a subject without bias when you are so blatantly passionate about it. Although I have often used Wikipedia as a research tool for various projects, I have never had cause to encounter the page on Jehovah’s Witnesses until today, after my boss told me that he had looked it up wanting to know about my beliefs and then asked me to look at what he found and give him feedback about it’s accuracy. While much, no most, of the description of the theology, doctrine and history is accurate, not all of it is and there is also obvious bias in the writing from both “sides of the fence” (previously used term from contributors above) that makes the article inconsistent and irrelevant in parts.

That being said, I have to agree with the fact that obscure links have no place in this article and cannot imagine why someone would place a link to a hokey list of Witness websites in an encyclopedic description of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (BTW: I do not know ANY Witnesses who would develop such websites much less promote them) Perhaps the reason was to introduce Wikipedia readers to Witnesses in person? Again, this is not the place for that. I view Wikipedia as a research tool, like any secular encyclopedia. It should be impartial, fact driven and not a place to assert opinion, to condemn or proselytize. (If your intent is to proselytize Retcon, you are not succeeding; there is a difference between defending ones beliefs and defending oneself. One involves facts; the other ego. The fact that you have engaged in such obtuse arguments makes me question which you are defending) As for Tommstein, I do not purport to know your history but I cannot help but wonder if you have not been harmed in some way by a Witnesses. I mean whatever drives you to have such absolute disdain, like an ex-alter boy railing against the Catholic Church over the post traumatic stress he suffered after the illicit and unspeakable acts of a pedophiliac (however I might add, independently acting) priest, this is the kind of passion that also leads to bias and unjustified condemnation. How can either of you hope to contribute anything impartial to this Wikipedia topic?

Lastly, I have read so much of this talk page and am really overwhelmed by the impression that certain contributors to this article have of Witnesses and can’t help but feel that much of it has seeped into the descriptions in the article. For the record, at least this one, I will note the following:

1. I am a Witness that has never had a problem or concern that questioning my beliefs or doctrine would bring about adverse implications or disassociation. I am a very outspoken person in all aspects of my life and fear of repercussions has never inhibited that quality in me. Witnesses can speak out about concerns or question their beliefs and do so. In fact, we are encouraged to do so with the biblical example of the Boreans, who were commended for doing that very thing.

2. Witnesses are not expected to “shun” disfellowshipped individuals that do not reside in their household. I would write more here but for times sake I will only say that we don’t even use the term “disfellowship” anymore.

You cannot hope to adequately and impartially know a religion, culture or species by a few facts, comments or even its history, as so much in this world changes in one way or another over time. You can only inquire and research in the most accurate resources available. I hope that as this article changes and gets updated as it likely will, the contributors will endeavor to advocate for accuracy verses personal bias or agendas. IP law girl 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)06:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, first Cairoi, now some person making their first ever Wikipedia edit. I'm being told left and right today. My butt is now officially whipped bare. I shall now go back outside and sit on the snow some more.Tommstein 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need more women (or at least A woman) on here to help simmer down all the testerone flying all over the place lol. Just so you know IP, it's not pride as to your question above, however is point is well taken. Retcon 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagine how different this whole thing would be if we were all women. Anyone wanna write the script? I hear Spielberg frequents this talk page.Tommstein 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were all women you would have already debated, argued until someone screamed or cried, established your true agendas, hashed it out, deciphered each point of view, forgiven one another’s jabs and moved on to coffee and the task at hand by now. End of story, cut & print. I must say, it's nice to see you boys in a calmer mood, I was beginning to give up hope. ;-) PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy and sane, remember the purpose of this site. If you want to promote your point of view, rail against something you hate then please, by all means; find a forum that is intended for that purpose, or if you are really ambitious, go develop your own personal "Here I am and here's what I think" website. This one should be founded on fact and not unsubstantiated opinion or hearsay. Thanks for being civil guys, you both potentially have a lot to offer here if you don't lose focus again. IP law girl 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good story to me. Now we just need it in script form.Tommstein 09:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seasons in the Sun

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)

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)

Please post concise, ontopic replies

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)

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)

Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections

I placed a dispute tag in both sections since Tomm and myself both see some rather unnecessary links in both sections. I've made the concession that some of the positive links, such as discussion boards and redundant articles, are unnecessary in both sections. Tomm seems to have blinders towards the critical section for some reason <g>, however be that as it may it seems we need to establish some general guidelines for on-topic links that we can all agree on. Missionary 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. When you're done, review the history of this article and Retcon's link-bombing it the other day, probably a day before the beginning of your glorious two days of experience here.Tommstein 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh??? Personal attacks against you? Sorry don't see it. I did review the history, yeah it looks like there was a ton of links added then...although it appears there were quite a few already. Tomm let's simply be reasonable, as those guidelines say, I'm glad you introduce them because really we all could be following them more thoroughly. Let's simply display some common courtesy, rather than letting partisan lines being drawn more firmly in the sand...let's take a step back...breathe...and simply come to a reasonable compromise. That is the best solution, be it with the excess in links (although some of the dbs are invalid as their contents are transient...much like posting links to talk pages here...I will make the concession that articles may have merit) or some other area. I'm sure all here will agree. Missionary 11:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The attack was, specifically, "Tomm seems to have blinders." Not that I am emotionally crushed because of it. You should also really review the definion of vandalism as it applies to Wikipedia if you don't want to continue pissing people off by improperly calling them vandals. But I hear you about stepping back, which is why I decided to leave the links that you re-added (for what, the fourth time?) until there is more discussion over what kinds of links to keep, snide edit summary directed towards me and all. Some of them may in fact be agreeable, so we might as well leave them until this is discussed, seeing as removing valid links isn't necessarily better than leaving bad ones. By the way, adding a ton of links barely even describes it, he nearly doubled the number of links in that section, from 12 to 22 (if I remember correctly), almost instantaneously. It was like he was searching for "Jehovah's Witnesses" in a search engine, ignoring all the hits he didn't like, and adding every single last one he could find that wasn't bad to the article. I don't care about the number of links, or which side has more (as I told him at the time), we just have to keep it from getting to the point of stupidity, like it was when it had the full 22 links (not that the current 19 is necessarily a whole lot better).Tommstein 11:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, you've got to be kidding...I mean honestly. Offended by "blinders" with all the slurs you hurl at the JW"s. And as to searching for articles on search engines, those are sites that I have frequented and which I vouch for, which I know that means nothing to you. It's best if we don't start counting, we'll end up counting the number of derrogatory labels issued forth to various JWs on Wiki by...well we'll keep it out of the personal attack realm. I think he knows who he is. :) Retcon 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The attack was not "blinders," as your partial quote claims. Find me a list of 'slurs I hurl at the JW's,' and I'll make you a list of times when the Witnesses here have called everyone else names, imputed bad motives to them, and generally talked crap about them. Now quit crying.Tommstein 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

First Tomm, in fairness you've called me "punk" over in the Russell page, which is a personal attack, and you exclaimed this evening "jesus christ dude" which I personally take offense to. I'm not seeing how "punk", a derrogatory label, is comparable to "blinders", a descriptive word. That being said, if you don't care how many links there are then what say we each set down some solid criteria and come to a meaningful balance. Missionary 11:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to impart the other side of the story, i.e. why I called you a punk (in the Watchtower article, not the Russell article)? Hint: it had something to do with something I just told you to stop doing. Saying "jesus christ dude" might be offensive, but it wasn't intended to put you down or anything, it was just an expression. If you think that's bad, don't look at my list of recently-edited articles, since there's a four-letter one that starts with F (you get three guesses what it is, and the first two don't count). We should definitely set criteria for links, but it's not just up to us either.Tommstein 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So then Tomm, if you are sensitve to the term "vandalism", why did you subsequently post that on several of my edits? Anyways let's just drop it...it's off-topic and the focus should be on the article not on either one of us. Missionary 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because several of your edits have in fact been vandalism. I objected to "improperly" calling people vandals, not calling vandalism vandalism.Tommstein 12:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Tommyboy, you know from where doth speakth. :) Love that cyclical logic employed: "I'm not dumb your dumb. I'm not dumb your dumb". See, doesn't really work. Retcon 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, your groundbreaking thesis has just proven that vandalism does not, in fact, exist. I bow to your glory and at how everyone else in the world could have missed such a simple, logical proof.Tommstein 02:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know, that Wikipedia is not a link farm. There is definetly too many links for both sections. What I'd do is to keep the official sites linked, as well as having a balanced number of the most detailed con and pro sites, making sure that we don't link to places which have the same information as the prominent ones. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 11:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lbmixpro, I agree completely with your assessment of the links. However, unless both sides of this issue are willing to make compromises on including only valid sites to link to, this issue will continue I'm afraid with for generations of Wiki's to come, lol. Is there some suggestions you can offer as to criteria to limit the linkage here? I personally think linking to pro and con dbs is about as useful as linking to talk pages here, which of course we wouldn't do. Also linking to subpages on websites rather than simply the websites themselves seems redundant. Same with the multiple "607" websites (one should suffice) and all the JW business sites added. Just some suggestions...yes Tomm I'm sticking out the olive branch, will you accept??? Missionary 11:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been through this problem in a similar article. We'd end up having to make a straw vote with the other editors to set up a temporary limit of the number of links, (about no more than five or six per view) until the link situation is under control. From there, you'd probably have to find the most "important" (for lack of better word) set of links to put in each section. It's best not to include message boards or personal websites, since they're not reliable sources.as far as WP is concerned. But what exactly is POV about the links lists? --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was saying (about the lists of links). I removed the tags, to which Missionary's response was to call me a vandal and add them back. The dude has added more tags in his two days than I have added in my months here. Then, he just had the testicular fortitude to accuse me of liking to play with tags on DannyMuse's talk page.Tommstein 12:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I accepted the olive branch a few edits up. Linking to subpages of sites isn't redundant if that's the only link to the site, or if the particular link is especially noteworthy on its own. The problem would be when there's a link to a site, and then individual links to a bunch of subpages. I've applied this principle myself when adding links, since I wasn't sure whether to add the link to that letter to the Governing Body or a link to the entire site, but I made myself pick just one and only one (yes, I'm strict with myself too). And that was just one subpage, not a bunch. Sometimes the 'item of interest' just isn't the front page of an entire website, it's something more specific. About the 607 sites, I can see where you come from without having read them, but, having read each and every one of them myself word for word, they each have stuff that is unique. Otherwise, I would agree, remove all the duplicates, because having the exact same thing repeatedly is just stupid. But just because they deal with the same subject doesn't mean they're clones of each other, and I don't think we should necessarily limit ourselves to just one link per topic (however "topic" would be defined), when different links talk about significant unique things.Tommstein 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the "issue specific" links should be placed on the "issue specific" pages, whether they be relating to medical, to doctrinal, to chronological, etc. As this is the "meat and potatoes" article simply providing an overview, it should be like-minded sites IMHO that are linked to, which present general discussion on the overall organization. I think we need to 86 all the discussion forums, that along with removing all of the issue-specific stuff (there are links throughout where interested ones can locate links on adjoining pages) should clean up the links. What say all? Fair? Missionary 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The problem is, there's no article discussing this specific chronological issue (unless it has hidden from me). But that seems to be a good way to deal with a lot of these links, creating separate articles that deal with specific subjects in more depth and moving links there. I can do it for this 607 stuff, but it'll take some time, because there's a lot, and I do mean a lot, of evidence that I would have to discuss in the 607 vs. 587/6 article. Once that's done, we can leave just one, if that, external link here, and just link to the other article.Tommstein 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If all specific links should be moved, like the blood one, then all commentary on blood should also be removed from the main page. You then get the problem that anyone wanting find information quickly cannot as all the external links have disappeared to new locations. There was nothing wrong with the critical links for months, it's only recently when "Retcon" and his other log-on names have started trashing pages to create this problem. The only new links on the critical section were Tom's 607bc ones, the rest have been there happily for months. It's the positive links that have mushroomed in the past few days, and they should be addressed not the critical links. I also feel some forums are relevant, especially the very large http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx as it had over 1.7 million posts, and many very large sections on research 2 that cannot be found anywhere else on the net. Number of links should never been an issue, it's the quality and content that should be discussed. Fluff personal websites being the main culprits that should be pruned out.Central 14:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't we both predict this? Screw with the article, and cry that the parts that have been there for eternity in bilateral peace have to also be changed if anyone wants to fix the mess. We're like fricking prophets. Our prediction record over the past week is now officially better than the Watch Tower Society's record over its 130-year or whatever it is existence. Funny how Missionary appears at the same time Retcon disappears, fully interested in the links section that Retcon had just messed up. Not to imply anything, of course. I hope he/they are aware that they don't have a patent on that tactic.Tommstein 14:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we did predict it. Netministrator, Retcon,Missionary and IP Law Girl all have identical opinions on exactly the same subject and the same section of material, and all appeared and registered posting here in a very small time frame, suspicious, you bet! Also, where is your buddy DannyMuse (a.k.a Danny O'Brien) hiding? All looks extremely suspect. I think the only way forward it to have the links as they were a week or so ago, and you might have to compromise with just one 607 link. What is also highly suspicious is that 99 percent of the positive and critical links have been there for a long time now, with little or no activity with potentially millions of viewers having a chance to complain of they felt there was a problem with a specific link, and nothing! The only blip of activity was one Muslim link in the critical, but I zapped that, as it was a personal page and more to do with Islam. All these strange newcomers all arriving at once with the same interest and edits, and only just registering should not have a say, as the links (as per last week), have been debated at length, and were found acceptable by all the normal posters and have been there for a long time. I think the only way forward is to screen all new links that may come up for quality, content and relevance, rather than messing up a perfectly good page as some unknown new arrivals from nowhere and decide it's time to destroy any critical material by using pitiful tactics of link bombing, and then pretending to be moral arbiters by removing most of the valid and long standing links, which as we know is their aim all along. The only concession might have to be some of your 607 links, I think as you have said, one is enough, maybe the rest can be word hover links in the text somewhere where 607/1914 is being discussed? What do you think? Central 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I first found this extremely curious when the original version of the 'demanding freedoms for themselves but denying them to their followers' paragraph, which had been there in peace as long as I remember, was removed once, and suddenly we had about 14 all-new Witnesses coming out of the woodwork continually removing it. Then the transparent link game. DannyMuse's name is Danny O'Brien? With the 607 links, it's like I've said, I don't have a problem leaving just one, especially after I write an article on the subject. Until then I would prefer that they all remain, since, as I mentioned, they are all unique, even if it's not obvious from the fact that they deal with the same date, but if it's not to be, worse things have happened (wow, six commas in one sentence). Or, as you mentioned, maybe they could be moved to being inline links wherever the subject of 607 is discussed in the article. It's pretty much all good for me. I declared long ago that I'm not a hardass when it comes to the links section being 'my' way, which doesn't exist since I don't have a 'my' way for the links section.Tommstein 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you know what else is funny? Almost the moment I remark about Missionary appearing at the same time Retcon disappears with an intense interest in Retcon's link shenanigans, Retcon magically reappears. Again, I won't say anything.Tommstein 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay to put this to rest and so that the conspiracy theorists in our midst can again focus on the man in the grassy knoll, check out my IP tag as I'm not logged in (this is Missionary). Of course this'll only work if I can get Retcon to respond as well. Who knows when he'll be online. And word to the wise, harmony of thought is no equivallent to oneness in being...I know some of the trinitarians here have difficulty grasping this concept. Remember, pointing the finger means four are pointing right back atcha. 65.112.202.58 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it would have been a lot more convincing if you hadn't gotten your 'own' username wrong initially (those that doubt, check the edit histories). You have proposed a test that would prove that there exists more than one IP address on the planet. Maybe even more than one computer. Ingenious. How do you do it? By the way, when I point, three fingers are pointing to the side, and one is pointing kind of upwards. Of course, your hand may be shaped differently.Tommstein 02:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oy vey...you have GOT to be kidding me! THIS is the vaunted defense of the two-headed Tommtral beast!!!! Well I'm not one for playing games, but I'll bite. You both are grasping at straws here, and as to the link bombing...I resent that remark. Everyone...yes EVERYONE including Minister felt that my links didn't contribute to the article. I still can back up the credentials of every single one of those sites and highlight how they match up with each on the opposition links. But why bother...Tommtral is here 24/7, slashing valid edits and then crying wolf when someone does like to him. You speak of double standard, gentlemen (man?) as to freedoms...look in the mirror. Your own editorial style highlights your double standard as to making the article lopsided with your paranoidcentric claims. The only comfort, looking at the history of this page, is that within 4-6 months you'll be gone and a new set will appear. Maybe they'll apply the Wikipedian principals to everyone. It could happen! (Retcon) 67.166.40.198 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the 'we're not doing it, because, uh, uh,... you're doing it!' defense. How ever do you two combine your brains to come up with these pieces of genius? Regarding the rest, I prefer to not comment on fictional accounts.Tommstein 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Tom, it's done; the cat is out of the bag! You set the bait (well done), and the fish took the line, now all we have to do is throw that fish in the fire! Retcon/Missionary has been exposed. Just look at his defence, and then (the best bit) check the location of those two IP addresses. And guess where they both are? Yup, Denver, Colorado, USA. One is in Denver central, and the other directly next door in the same city zone, just a part called Lakewood. Humm, I've never won big on the lottery, but what do you think the odds are of two separate people from the same location, same city, same county, same country, both appearing at the same time, on the same board, and making the same edits, and the same arguments and heavily defending each other? Retcon/Missionary You have been caught by your own foolishness, I believe you should remove all your edits, or have then removed for you, and depart from here. Since your schizophrenic arrival, you have caused no end of trouble, windups, and pissing people off. You have spammed the main page with clear disruptive agendas to then have all the links in the critical section cut back drastically, you have messed up the government section, that was fine when Tom first edited it, you are a disgrace. Why you feel the need to make up two or more, or possibly multiple accounts is unknown. You have not achieved any more good with five log-on names than you would with just one, why did you do it? You have messed up the page and cause disputes and wasted posters time. You should be ashamed. You have also shamed Jehovah and His "earthly organization", how sad He must be seeing "His Witnesses" use such crap and pitiful methods, you are a bad disciple of Jeboba the Watch Tower, have they not taught you to lie better? You have shamed their propaganda efforts, and brought dishonour to the machinations of the Governing Body's "Theocratic Warfare. I bid you farewell. You are officially disfellowshipped from Wikipedia, and will be shunned (and possibly worse). PS. Tom, yes DannyMuse is Danny O'Brien, he was silly enough to post his name and congregation on a talk page! DOH! Maybe we should pay him a visit at the Kingdom Hall just as the opening prayer is starting, "Hey Danny my man, Cool church dude, how life? We can talk apostate stuff in detail now like we do on the Internet!" (Jaws drop all around, presiding overseer says, "Danny, can I see you in the back room IMMEDIATELY!) Note: (this is humour, and not to be taken seriously or used when under the influence of alcohol or when operating heavy machinery or driving, thank you, have a nice day!) Central 12:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, I amaze myself sometimes. As Jesus said, "It has been accomplished." How'd you get that Lakewood part? I seem to only get references to Denver itself. Visiting DannyMuse's congregation as you suggest would quite possibly be the funniest thing I have ever seen, heard of, or done in my life. He would probably literally pee himself. Ah, the things people do online and hope they don't get caught doing.

But about this sockpuppet business, we need to gather all the evidence into one place, starting from the moment the shenanigans started running through the disclosure of the IP addresses and including every bit of their incriminating behavior, because I need something to put in the sockpuppet tag I'm going to slap on Missionary's user page per WP:SOCK, and possibly if we wish to push the issue even farther and try to get the sockpuppet(s) blocked. I wonder how many more they're using, especially in light of what happened with the original two-line 'freedom for us but not our believers' paragraph. Any edits made by Missionary are immediately revertible now as a sockpuppet, so that saves a lot of arguing time.Tommstein 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing, what are the odds. A metropolitan area of over 3 millions and there are 2 JWs interested in the same subject. Anyways this is futile and off topic, let's stick towards comprehensive language that bridges the gap and avoid, on both sides, personal attacks. Thx. Missionary 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The number you are looking for is 0.000435 (2,830,000/6.5 billion).Tommstein 02:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, have you seen this post that was made towards you, and then deleted five minutes later? Central 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my lordy. It's like my eyes see the words on the screen, but my brain is unable to convince itself that there exist people that stupid on the planet. I think I won't wait to slap that sockpuppet tag on his page.Tommstein 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is done. For now I have the evidence link pointing to this section, but we should gather up our facts and put them on some kind of subpage somewhere so that it is more accessible and because this stuff will eventually be archived. You might want put his page on your watchlist too to fix it when he inevitably removes the sockpuppet tag, seeing as the sole purpose of this sockpuppet seemed to be to commit vandalism and piss everyone off.Tommstein 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what's really freaky Tom, I'm getting the same gut feeling with this new guy 'Steven Wingerter' as I did with you know who. Weird eh? Maybe I'm developing clairvoyance? Anyone want the Lottery numbers? Central 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I too get it. We'll have to wait and see. To this point, he seems rather agreeable to me. Of course, so did Missionary at first. You know what I just remembered though? Read the following threatening edit by Cairoi: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Watchtower&diff=31405790&oldid=31403810. Try to focus and contain your laughter until you get all the way through. Now, note that this threat that 'I'd better start behaving or else' was made on December 14. Also note that Missionary made his grand appearance just the day before. After noting that, note that Retcon, the other half of the sockpuppetry known to this point, disappeared from the 12th until the 15th, and, when he reappeared the day after Cairoi's threat, he seemed to have no goal other than to insult me, call me a vandal (in keeping with Retcon/Missionary's not knowing what a vandal is here), and start trouble. All a coincidence, that two sockpuppet troublemakers started making trouble the day before and the day after Cairoi's dumbass threat? Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, Missionary has been trying to get his user and talk pages deleted, and has actually had one success in getting his user page speedily deleted (as of this writing). I've recreated it with the sockpuppet tag per Wikipedia:Sock puppet, slapped the tag on his talk page too, and left a note to admins in the edit summary to please not delete the pages. What we need to do now is have him blocked indefinitely, as is mentioned in the proven sockpuppet tag. I shall now make an inquiry regarding how one proceeds in this case, but we really need to gather up our evidence so we have something nicer to point to than this section.Tommstein 09:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that it is not prohibited for editors to have sockpuppets. It is merely prohibited to use sockpuppets either (a) to evade a ban or block or (b) to generate the false appearance of consensus or the lack thereof. The only time a sockpuppet's edits are revertible on sight is when the sockpuppet was created by a banned user, which quite clearly is not the case here. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to know. I was more or less informally freelancing there, not referring to anything specific.Tommstein 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious Tom, I had a good laugh reading that, and yet another similarity comes to mind. Did you notice the same martyred syndrome especially with the obsession on using hopelessly inappropriate illustrations to try and shut you up, and they being focussed on some pitiful race jibe like "if you call the prophecies false then you are calling blacks niggers etc." I couldn't stop laughing when I read that. Take a look at those words again, and then compare them to the same material from IP Law girl, when she/he/them were attacking me for no reason, she went on, note the key word phrases I have put in bold:

" It's a label yes but nothing new! Labels are not an invention of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, they're an invention of society as a whole. If Central were to spew his anti-JW message, targeting other groups, like let's say he directed his anti-JW propaganda at the Jewish community, he would be called an anti-Semite; against other cultures, a racist; against women, a misogynist, you get my drift? The thing about labels like these is; they exist everywhere in society because they simply identify who you are and what you believe.."

And now look at what user cairoi said to you the day before: "He's not stopping the slurs. Tax dodge is a slur like false prophet and the "N" word for people of african descent, the "C" word for people of chinese descent and the "S" word for women of aboriginal american descent. They all come from once normal, everyday words. . ."

See the Incredible similarity? A bit like using the same service provider, in the same city, in the same country, on the same website, on the exact same page, on the same edits, at the same time, and registering at the same time too! Plus the behaviour of IP Law girl (a new user) was totally irrational the other day, as I made no personal attacks at all on her, but she went nuts spitting out the ad hominem en mass, and that was the same day we outed the sock puppet spammer Netministrator|Retcon|Missionary. Why would a new poster make such a nasty attack on me when I've said noting to them? Not unless they are the same person, and one that is prone to making stupid mistakes. . . . the plot thickens. I think the admin here need to check out a few new posters IP addresses. It all smells decidedly fishy.

PS. I see you have been having fun educating some JWs on the Watchtower magazine page, and why was I not invited? You could have told me, as there are quite a few more juicy quotes that speak of mass genocide and killing of church, members in 1918, which would be a good and rounded balance to insert. I notice you put some stuff on Jimmy Swaggart and the Watch Tower's interfaith love fest legal tax evasion case. Maybe some of that, even one link would be good on the main page, as it's also related to governments and the fiasco of the Watch Tower in France refusing to pay "Caesars things to Caesar", and having a massive tax evading bill to pay, we need a few links to that on the main page, as I see there is a bit on the link to Quotes website getting harassed by the Governing Body for quoting them accurately, so there should be balance and show that the French government wants its due taxes but the Watch Tower are fighting tooth and nail to not pay them. Yet another big fat double standard there relating to governments. If members did the same, they would be booted out. Central 21:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he probably thought he was striking fear into somebody, as opposed to riotous laughter. I've noticed a lot of similarities among various parties that I won't go into, because knowledge is power. That one you found is pretty striking, but I'll say no more. Remember, we're not dealing with a genius. If you don't spell things out for them, there's no way they'll notice (and even if you did, they probably would still mess up, but let's not find out). They probably don't think they stand out like a sore thumb, especially now that our 'sockpuppet antennas' are out and they were already obvious enough that we busted them before they even convicted themselves.

About the Watchtower article, yeah, it's a regular ball of fun over there. I figured you already had the page watchlisted. I actually had a lot more quotes in there, but someone pared them down to four. I'm thinking of switching them out for better ones. If any of the stuff there inspires you about changes to this page, go for it.Tommstein 09:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Central, here's the sockpuppet evidence page I created. Check it out: User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence.Tommstein 10:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a few of us mentioned that policy the other day. Didn't make a bit of difference. Retcon was on a major I'll-do-whatever-I-want trip.Tommstein 11:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Careful, "I'll-do-whatever-I-want trip" may be a percieved as a personal attack. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (this edit was met with an edit conflict.)

True, but I doubt that there are too many ways to describe what he was doing without leaving open the possibility of him trying to turn it around and make it look like you're attacking him.Tommstein 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way to build bridges Tomm. Best to give all parties concerned the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives. Something we can all (and I mean all) can work on. Missionary 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A description of his actions is not a statement about his motives.Tommstein 12:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In Retcon's defense, it seems like the article was "link bombed" as you state prior to his arrival, and he simply followed suit in kind. I tend to agree with Konrad's assessment above, he was probably trying to find a balance. Doesn't make either side right in trying to "one-up" the link count, however. Missionary 11:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because I've been following the article for months, and don't remember a similar linkbomb prior to his. In any case, it's like I said, if he was really trying to equalize a 14-12 count by adding 10 links, he can't count.Tommstein 11:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, let me ask you, can you at least express some civility in your replies? The words you pick tend to have sharp edges to them, and you win no respect with such a demeanor. Instead of assigning blame, let's work on the issue that is present now, rather than what occured then. Sound good? Missionary 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lofty ideals for someone that I've had to tell to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks about 80 times in two days. Who's assigning blame anyway? I stated the context in which a Wikipedia policy was brought up, you came back trying to shift the blame to some person that never existed, I mentioned how that theory is untenable, and, well, here we are.Tommstein 12:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, reading your history with Danny I find that comment curious, but anyways lets focus on the task at hand. Thx. Missionary 12:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the issue of dispute tags... I haven't removed the NPOV tag for the article, but have restored the particular flag on the mangled paragraph in the governments section. I think the article NPOV tag 'should' be removed, as tagging an entire article when only portions are disputed is discouraged. I also thing tagging links sections that are clearly labeled as to their POV is silly - the main dispute seems to be some sort of argument over how many links. CarbonCopy (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, you're now the third person (including me) that has said that tagging the links sections is just plain stupid, versus one person, Missionary. The tags just plain don't apply there. I'm removing them again (and fully expecting Missionary to again call me a vandal and put them back).Tommstein 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Central already removed them. Make that four people that realized how stupid it was to put those tags there. I guess I'm not the one that has to prepare to get called a vandal.Tommstein 14:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow leave for a few days and all this transpires. Hey Tommy boy, check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=31447681 cause right there it shows your excessive vandalization of several links, while *surprise surprise* looks whose legions of 607 links somehow survive the double-standard culprit's vandalizing ways. That is some pretty damning evidence there Tommy boy, I have to say that gent is feeling a might flustered and a wee embarrassed right about now ;) Retcon 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at a presumably old version of the article was not especially enlightening. Add 'calls people vandals while demonstrating that they don't know what the hell is considered vandalism on Wikipedia' to the list of strange, bizarre, and of course completely coincidental similarities between Retcon and Missionary.Tommstein 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Policy for New Arrivals

I would like to propose a policy for all the new posters, and obviously any more that will come in the future, and that is that they read all the pages of talk before they start making any significant edits. By significant I mean anything that is not spelling or grammar etc., or clearly incorrect like a date or scripture. Yes, this may take a few days, or even a week or so to read through it all, but it will be a valuable education. I believe this will help by saving a lot of time, and will give them a good education into all the hard work, debates, and process of compromise that have been exercised here in the formation of the main page and its related sub-pages. It will also stop time wasting with going over the same stuff that has been debated to exhaustion on previous dates. What do the usual posters (not the new ones) here think; do you think this is reasonable? Central 21:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how you plan to enforce this policy; and from reading the lengthy history, I'm not sure it's the new arrivals that are the problem - especially if some are really socks or meatpuppets. I ended up landing here from CVU/RC patrol due to the high volume of edits that resembled blanking vandalism or 3RR violations. Didn't look like new arrivals to me. And to be honest, much of the discussion in the talk page shed more heat than light. If anything, this page could use a few more uninvolved editors. CarbonCopy (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi CarbonCopy, I agree it's not enforceable, but more of a suggestion, or directive so that the same stuff does not come up over and over, or they can be directed to an older discussion rather than bring it all up again and cause a whole stink here as new posters have just done. Regards. Central 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree with CarbonCopy. Definitely encourage new editors to read the guidelines at WP:JW, and perhaps we can expand on them, but I think the main problem is *everyone* seems to have an agenda that goes against the spirit of WP.

Let me state emphatically: WP is not the place to show how wonderful/evil Jehovah's Witnesses are. It's pretty clear that almost all the editors have very strong views on JWs, and this needs to be put aside. It would benefit everyone to stop discussing the validity of JW doctrine and the us vs. them thing. Stick to the article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I again concur with your statement. Simply presenting all the relevant facts and leaving conclusions up to the reader. If describing some impressions individuals have relating to controversial portions of the article, then the fewer the words the better. I know I've gotten as much into the heat as anyone, however I think wholesale edits on both sides should not occur without discussion first here. I'm willing to subscribe to that policy. And also, as to competing camps...I honestly believe there would not be such a divide if Tomm and Central would quit making snide remarks. Rather than issuing forth accusations on this or that, stick to the issues and let the intereactions iron themselves out. How can we remedy this? Missionary 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly believe there would not be such a divide if the Witnesses here would quit making snide remarks and engaging in personal attacks against all non-Witnesses.Tommstein 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It couldn't be enforced, obviously, seeing as even unregistered users can edit anything they want on Wikipedia. What I do, though, is, if something was debated on the Talk page and someone comes along and decides to unilaterally change it, I just revert it on sight and tell them to look at the Talk page, where they can add any extra thoughts they might have that no one else thought of. If we're supposed to reach compromises on the Talk page, and then any random person can come at any time from anywhere and do whatever they want, we might as well skip the compromise phase completely and go straight into the perpetual edit warfare mode.Tommstein 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, Central, did you just ask to add a policy and then within your policy-making request also say: "What do the usual posters (not the new ones) here think; do you think this is reasonable?" As though "new posters" or any poster for that matter, can be excluded from making an edit? Really? Hmmmm, that's funny to me. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is that it is a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I apologize if you feel that new posters, such as myself, are in anyway being redundant in their edits but the thing is, when a pattern develops or a controversial issue is being discussed, people tend to weigh in again on topics that keep arising. To ask an editor to not bring up subject matter that has already been discussed is asinine, it's like telling reporters not to rerun public interest stories or to not continue to report on issues that have come up in the past because well, we've already heard that before so let's not get an update or fresh insight. In the legal field, statutes, rules and policy is re-hashed, changed and re-discussed constantly. Issues arise over and over all the time and to say that someone else, who may have a different perspective, cannot weigh in just because it was touched upon before is somewhat well, Big Brother don't you think? (No pun intended, oh who am I kidding? yes, yes it was, see despite your impressions of us, we can be humorous)IP law girlPlus you cannot really expect that casual WP readers will take a week to look back through all of the archives do you? IP law girl 05:39, 16 December 2005

Please read my post again, as you have gone totally off topic. It was a suggestion to stop needless re-edits of well-established material that was discussed in the older Talk pages. I was clearly not saying people should be banned from editing (your straw man), but it saves a lot of time if new arrivals read the Talk section, and see what has been discussed. A big problem is when naïve JWs come here, see all the stuff on the pages—especially date related material—and freak out as they have no knowledge of this at all, and the Governing Body has manipulated them to think it's all "lies, and demon apostates" that have made it all up. They then delete massive sections of text/links, and naively think they are doing some kind of godly public service. If they had read the talk pages, and looked at the abundant proof (from their own literature), then these kinds of problems would not occur so often. Central 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. Thank you for providing such an insightful example Central, such as you ranting about your unsubstantiated opinion that the Governing Body has manipulated our minds so that we are unable to think for ourselves. Hmmm, where have I heard that before, let's see....Oh yes, I think I've only read your opinion on that in the forum about let's say......a billion times already. The irony of your hypocrisy is not lost on me. I find it amusing that you can seriously sit there and make the statements you make about saving time by not addressing topics that have been discussed and then insert your own pre-discussed rant. Whose minds are you trying to manipulate in your demands here to enforce policing policies directed at "naive" (interesting assumption)JW's? Careful now, your agenda is rearing its ugly little head again. The only "straw man" I see is you; take care not to burn yourself up. For the benefit of this post and FYI for future readers, I will chose not to retort any further comments made by Central on this matter as it is a waste of time and takes up space that should be devoted to dealing with facts pertaining to the topic at hand. Thank you, IP law girl 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, you try in desperation to change the subject, attacking me personally. Many JWs come here, and do not know about the multiple dates of their religion, (e.g. 1874, 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 etc., and are not encouraged to do any objective research by the Governing Body. This leads them to delete whole sections of text, especially date related articles due to their naïve assumption that all they have been told by the Governing Body is true, and that anyone who says different is an apostate or some agent of Satan and lying. A little research would open their minds, and stop them making such ignorant and rash vandalising choices. The rest of your post is personal attacks and complete lack of comprehension of satire. Central 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(PLEASE NOTE: This paragraph was originally written directly following my initial edit, as an afterthought, and was not in any way in response to the paragraph above, which was insterted later by the editor, "Central", after this paragraph had been written. Taking things out of context for an advantage is a common tactic employed by detractors of Jehovah's Witnesses.)IP law girl 20:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Okay so being the stubborn tenacious little girl that I am, I have to address the issue that Central brought up above about “demon apostates”. What in the world? As I have never, in my experience as a Witness, ever heard the term “demonic apostates” (about apostates yes, but demonic ones??), I just wanted to know, as you seem to know so much about the religion I have been in for years, when I use this term “demonic apostate” am I supposed to hold a hand to each side of my head and point my index fingers up to represent devil horns? Bwaaaahaha! Look, here’s the thing about using a term like “apostate” folks, it’s nothing new, really, it’s a label yes but nothing new! Labels are not an invention of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, they're an invention of society as a whole. If Central were to spew his anti-JW message, targeting other groups, like let’s say he directed his anti-JW propaganda at the Jewish community, he would be called an anti-Semite; against other cultures, a racist; against women, a misogynist, you get my drift? The thing about labels like these is; they exist everywhere in society because they simply identify who you are and what you believe. If you don’t like it then go isolate yourself from society in some secluded place and become a hermit. ….er uh but then you would still just be labeled as a “hermit”…..a maladjusted, anti-social, recluse/hermit. ha-ha Oh lighten up already. :-) IP law girl 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, to read that sentence from a member of a religion that preaches total isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible short of becoming the Amish... I think I just hurt my spleen.Tommstein 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You IP law girl, have broken nearly ever rule in Wikipedia, and made multiple personal insults and ad hominem attacks on me. You don't live in Denver, by any chance do you? You seem more than a little steamed up. Maybe you should go and cool down, before you make more unwarranted ad hominem attacks that have nothing at all to do with the subject. You are not giving a very good example of your religion or God. It's very sad when some JWs are so terribly insecure about their faith they go ballistic with worldly fits of anger making fruitless wild personal attacks and insults when anyone dares to criticise their leaders in New York. Some would say that demonstrates they are far less free thinking than they claim to be and react in fear. Some would say it's in the same mentality of cult-like reactions to the divine like untouchable state their leaders often portray themselves. You need to go and sit down and ask yourself, why do you feel this irrational urge to take it personally, and make nasty personal attacks at the critic for criticism that was directed not at you, but the Governing Body? Your insults, malevolent ad hominem snipes, and unchristian personal attacks on me will not change a thing, they only go to demonstrate how reactive you are, and how under the influence of the Watch Tower Society you are. I pity the poor individual that will meet you on the doors. If they dare to criticise the Governing Body I can imagine you jumping on him or her attacking tooth and nail, and threatening. . . Or making vile personal insults about their house, clothes, accent, looks, car or anything that you feel with draw attention away from your own insecurities and fears. Are we to take you as the typical Jehovah's Witnesses "Christian" example? It's insecure fear based reactions like yours that have been shown here at times that turn people right off your religion. PS. Don't bother replying to this, as I'm sure you will just make more personal insults, and you already said you wouldn't reply (which you've already done), I imagine that was more "Theocratic War Strategy" Central 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As a new arrival, I think this is reasonable to read pages relating to page content and integrity. However, it is daunting with the volume of interpersonal adversarial dialogues between editors. Perhaps if there was a streamlined page that summarize the arguments that have thus far been presented by all parties concerned? I'm unsure if that is possible or even practical, though it would be a valuable resource tool to pool from and build future dialogues relating to the main page. Probably one or two of the "old timers" (no offense lol) could chart out the progress of thought and development of material over the past year. Any takers? Steven Wingerter 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Add a section on disfellowshipping?

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)

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)

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)

"Human Rights and Freedoms"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The term "being"

Central, I seem to remember the distinction the WT Society made on "being" disappearing in the 1970s or 1980s. Do you have any references otherwise? Dtbrown 06:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dtbrown. Are you sure, as I have looked up those articles that were posted by Jeffro77, and have only found one Watchtower that truly used the term in their own words over the past 55 years, and that is as a question in a 1994 issue, 1 Aug p.14, all the others are explanations of Greek/Hebrew words, or (99 percent) quotations of other people. The term 'Human beings' does appear slightly more in the Awake! magazine, but still the vast majority are quotes of others. The Watchtower mag is the primary religious magazine with the doctrine are discussed and published, and there seems to be no reverse from their article in 1958 about preferring the term 'Human creatures'. It's not really a big deal. If you or someone wants to remove it that is fine by me to keep the peace, but I have not seen any evidence that they have changed policy, especially from the lack of the term 'Human beings' when they are using their own words in the Watchtower mags. If you want to zap it, feel free. Central 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, both your honesty and your math need revising. The references to Greek and Hebrew words are indeed still the Watchtower writers' own words which were not direct quotes, and the exact expression was not required for the descriptions of the original-language words discussed. I do not appreciate your implication of calling me a liar. Of the 59 occurrences of "human beings" in the Watchtower magazine from 1950 to 2003, 3 were not quotes. That is slightly over 5%, leaving 95 percent quoted, not the hypothetical 99%. Irrespective, that they use it at all in their literature indicates that they do not consider the term offensive, especially if the implication is something that they should only want to be applied to God. You are clinging to a single reference to a 1958 article. If you want to cling to everything ever printed by the Witnesses, you will certainly end up in fine mess.--Jeffro77 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jeffro77, I see you have chosen to ignore the fact that it's been removed, and I have clearly, said "it's no big deal" either way, maybe you are just lonely? You said: "both your honesty and your math need revising". I have checked the Watch Tower CD. Two of these are explaining Greek and Hebrew words' meaning where accuracy would be needed, not doctrine. (1 Aug 96 p.5), (1 Aug 94 p14) One other qualifies the term 'human beings' by stating 'human creatures' as if the reader needed an explanation (15 Oct 75 p.612). And the only single independent usage is a question (1 Apr 94 p.6), which is most likely a mistake that got past the proofreaders. All the other occasions that are there are direct quotes of other people's words and text, where obviously they would have to retain the correct wording regardless of not agreeing with its usage as they do with any other quotation of other people's works and words. Regardless, my post was still accurate in what it said: * Only Jehovah God is a true "being", all other imperfect life forms are just "creatures". Human beings are described by the organization in their primary religious Watchtower magazine almost exclusively as "human creatures", "creatures", or just "humans"—but very rarely as "human beings", and these are nearly always quotes of other people, or rare translations of Greek or Hebrew words. (Watchtower magazine, 15 December 1958, p.764)

Wow! For a topic you don't consider important, you sure went to town on replying. You narrow your scope to Watchtower articles alone to suggest that the term is hardly used at all in Witness publications, yet if they did not like to use the term, there is no reason why it would appear in Awake! articles either. You suggest that the instance that "got past the proofreaders" was a mistake, completely ignoring the prevalence of the term in Awake! articles. Your post in the article was in fact not accurate because it was not current. It made use of an idiomatic reference from a 1958 article and clearly ignored usage in their publications since. It suggested that something was currently a belief when, at best, it was only really ever an attitude, and not a current one.--Jeffro77 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You go on: "Exact expression was not required for the descriptions of the original-language words discussed" well that is interesting, as the organization makes such a big pedantic deal about using Hebrew and Greek in the first place all the time for the very purpose of being more accurate to their true meaning, not just some roundabout translation, or why bother with Hebrew and Greek at all? You then get either paranoid, or have a victim complex: "I do not appreciate your implication of calling me a liar". I have not even addressed you, except to say "Thanks for your input" (And that's the last time I ever will) so why are you desperately trying to personalise this? A disagreement is about the organization, not you, the person, that would be ad hominem. Or are you so conceited that anyone who has a differing opinion is immediately a cause for you to take personal offence? Get over it, you will have a long and painful life if that is your chosen position. You go on: "indicates that they do not consider the term offensive" This is a straw man, where did I say offensive? If you read that 1958 article, they do not say offensive either, they clearly say:

You then try to back up the Watchtower-only approach by limiting them to explaining Hebrew and Greek words, but the words discussed did not require the exact expression "human beings" to properly define the terms "inhabited earth" or "spirit". Then you try to make me look silly, saying I am conceited and have a 'victim complex' after I validly remarked about your ""implication" that I was lying.--Jeffro77 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"For some years now the Watch Tower publications have ascribed the quality of being only to Jehovah God, in view of the basic significance of his name. So it has reserved the word 'being' as a sort of title of Jehovah out of respect for the significance of his name and has referred to humans as mere creatures. . . If anyone wants to use the modern dictionary meaning he is free to do so, but in the light of what is above said we trust you will understand why our publications have restricted the expression to Jehovah God." Now you are not being honest adding in false straw men like "offensive", and even if it were "offensive" that would not stop them quoting others. Much of Christendom is offensive to the Governing Body and JWs, but they quote them all the time. Your last statement made me laugh: "If you want to cling to everything ever printed by the Witnesses, you will certainly end up in fine mess". If I were "clinging" the points would still be in the main article, but I asked Dtbrown to remove them, and he has. If you can find an article that covers the same subject and gives a reversed view now, then please let us know. I find it amusing that JWs in particular fixatedly state, "oh, that was in the past so it's not true now", not realising that today is tomorrow's past. They also seem to forget their own Bible states that 'God does not change', so a truth is always a truth, and not changeable like the blowing wind. What will JWs say about 'today's divine truths' in twenty years? "Oh that old stuff is abandoned now, it's apostate to believe it now, we have a new truth now" LOL! Funny how there is no mention of the "faithful and discreet slave" giving out rotten food or contaminated food "at the proper time" in the Bible, to be later replaced with good food. If the past was false, when it was called "divine truth" then the present is equally false, so how can anything be trusted that JWs' organization comes out with? Something for them and you to think about. Regards. Central 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe 'offensive' was the wrong word... maybe it would have been better to say they used to consider the term 'inappropriate', 'inaccurate', or 'invalid'. In any case, I thought it was obvious what I meant. Your rhetoric on the Witnesses changing what they have said in the past is really quite wasted on me. You could say you're preaching to the converted. And it's not even relevant in this issue. My point was that your entry in the article did not belong in a list of current beliefs, and I stated in my comment that it would be fine to put it in a list of once-held views. Whether anything the Witnesses say can be trusted is a whole other issue, and one with which I think we would find more agreement by the sound of things, but irrespective of the appropriateness of their spiritual 'purging' of 'truths', a list of current beliefs should contain just that.--Jeffro77 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was one of those things that never was officially announced, but just left to die. Sort of like the change from "Jehovah's witnesses" to "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1976. Dtbrown 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They used the uncapitalized "witnesses?" Crap, I just inserted a comment into the article about that next to a quote from 1955. I'd better go remove it.Tommstein 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spirit beings on earth?

For documentation of Russell's belief that those "dead in Christ" resurrected in 1878 and onwards were spirit beings on earth, see:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/jwhistory.html

about half of the way down under "Russell's mature view." It says, in part, "the setting up of that Kingdom has actually been in progress since the year 1878; that there the resurrection of all the dead in Christ was due; and that therefore, since that date, not only is our Lord and Head invisibly present in the world, but all these holy messengers are also with him." The Bible Students believed that Christ had actually returned to the earth in 1874 but was invisible. Those resurrected in 1878 would be with Christ here on earth. Since about 1930, the JWs have believed that Christ's return is a "turning of attention" to the earth--not an actual physical return. Dtbrown 15:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang man, the more you learn of their early beliefs the wackier they get. So I guess Jesus and Company were actually believed to be more or less wandering ghosts on the earth. And I actually said that in my comment jokingly....Tommstein 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's still the position held by most Bible Student groups. And, if one accepts the idea that Christ actually did return to the earth (but invisibly) in 1874, it's rather consistent. Christ and His Bride would be together. It was Rutherford's article "Birth of a Nation," published in 1925 which began the change to a metaphorical view of Christ's Return. He said the war in heaven (Rev. chapter 12) was Christ against Satan in 1914. Some old-timers in the movement had trouble accepting it because they had believed Christ was here on earth since 1874...how could he have battled Satan in heaven? This led to the view that the Return of Christ was a metaphor for Christ's "turning of attention" to the earth. Dtbrown 09:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if Bible Students still believed that or had changed their story too at some point, since that's a long fricking time to be wandering around the planet and 1914 didn't in fact bring the end of the world as expected.Tommstein 09:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Linking to copyrighted works

Greetings.

I have deleted a couple of the links at the end of the article that link to copyrighted works on other sites; this is a violation of Wikipedia policy as noted at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.

Here is the deleted text:

C5: Scanned text discouraging higher education from the Watch Tower 22 May 1969, p.15
C6: Scan of the Watch Tower Society Kingdom ministry leaflet, "How Are You Using Your Life?", May 1974.

SteveMc 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello SteveMc, I have read that link to copyrighted works, and besides it being written and made up by members of the public rather than Wikipedia's legal department, it still does not apply. Can you prove that the sites are in legal breach of fair use? If not, then removing links (and they are just links, not the actual material posted here on Wikipedia), is unreasonable, especially if it falls under fair use. Plus who made up that edit on the "copyright" page? I might as well change it and then quote it as some kind of "rule" but what would that prove? Nothing! As anyone can edit that so called "copyright" page, which makes it less then valuable and definitely not legal, looking at some of the total rubbish that appears on Wikipedia at times. Central 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, thanks for the (hostile?) response. Both of the images are scanned images of copyrighted works. The image seems to be a very large part of the original work, not a very small part, and there appears to be no permission given from the original publisher, put together that is a violation of fair use. Interesting thought on the copyright page; it (the recommendations on the copyright page) are not made up, but are a common recommendation regarding the state of law in the United States. Currently that page is locked to prevent arbitrary changes. Ignoring it ignores Wikipedia policy. Sincerely, SteveMc 03:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we really sure that they violate fair use though? The first one especially, being a scan of one single page (or part of one page, I can't really tell about the top border) of a 32-page magazine that has 24 issues a year. Even the second one though, another scan of one page (or part of one page, can't tell again), doesn't really seem very outrageous to me. If links to sources of that size and character aren't allowed, there are probably millions of links on Wikipedia that have to go, and it bodes badly on the ability of Wikipedia articles to document themselves without first getting explicit permission to use their references, especially articles critical of their subjects, or even just individual critical links; the ability to use people's own incriminating words would pretty much be gone (unless they speak in small sentences), since they would never grant permission to criticize them, in excerpts of any size.Tommstein 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello SteveMc, I'm not sure why you took my points as "hostile" they were not meant to be. Sorry if you took offence. Anyway, you said a few worrying things that concern me. First "The image seems . . . there appears . . .that is a violation of fair use." Are we legal experts in fair use cases? (and no that is not a sarcastic question, it's a valid one). "Seems" and "appears" are not legally binding terms; they are subjective opinions. Wikipedia is not the place to make legal declarations and then require they be followed as if editors are court judges. If the external site has some issues then that is for the courts to decide, not us with what may be slanderous speculations. Also, we are supposed to assuming good faith, which is a clear Wikipedia policy. And, this external site is not the policing job of Wikipedia, or its right to even comment on other people's sites. Declaring someone's site as criminal/illegal is slander and defamation if not founded in legal fact, which would then bring Wikipedia into direct legal breach. The best way is to assume good faith, not comment on the business of external sites, and only act if the material is clearly illegal, i.e., child porn, drug dealing, firearms selling etc., and not minor stuff such as personal subjective views on fair use of external sites. Again, if we slander other sites by saying they are engaged in illegal activity with no legal court judgement to back that, then we risk Wikipedia being sued for slander and defamation. I think it's best to Assume good faith Steve. Regards Central 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC) PS. Thanks for putting 'C5' back, maybe C6 should also be.

Tommstein, On the first one "C5", if the scan were just of the two paragraphs quoted, that would clearly be ok. But placing most of a page is questionable; even so, I placed it back on the main article. For the second one "C6", the reference calls the source a "leaflet". This seems to me to be a very large portion of a leaflet. Sincerely, SteveMc 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve - I'm glad you replaced the C5 quote, as it clearly falls within fair use guidelines. However, the C6 quote also falls within fair use as well. First, it's not just a quote from a single leaflet - Kingdom Ministry is a monthly publication by Watchtower. The citation notes this quotation is from the May 1974 edition, which should be a clue that this is one issue in on ongoing publication, for those unfamiliar with Watchtower literature. But even if it was only a one-time standalone publication, the citation should also specify page 3. This quotation is from only a part of one article or section in that months issue of Kingdom Ministry. It's not clear from the citation, but How Are You Using Your Life is not the title of a leaflet, but rather the title of an article in that months Kingdom Ministry publication (of which each month is multiple pages). This citation also clearly falls within fair use, and should also be replaced.

While the Wikipedia copyright linking article listed above is both correct and policy on Wikipedia, it doesn't really address the underlying issue of whether these citations fall under fair use. A better explantion can be found at Fair Use. The issue isn't that relevant here, as the portions quoted are rather small, but please note that while quoting smaller sections is usually better that larger sections, there is no legally defined limit or percentage, and even quoting entire works has been upheld in some cases. --Krich (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, I addressed a question to you on the Mediation Cabal page, but have heard nothing so far. Just wondering about your POV on that issue there. Thanks, SteveMc 03:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Categories: Talk archives