Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Critical views

Can this section be cleaned up without bowing to bias in either side?

Biblical canon

I think that metioning the Apocrypha or various views on the biblical canon in the main article is absolutely not nescesary. So is not done, I guess, in articles about most christian groups. What they believe about the Apochrypha could be mentioned in the Doctrines-article instead. Summer Song 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If Jehovah's Witnesses claimed to be Protestant it would be automatically assumed they follow the Protestant canon. That is why articles on various Protestant groups do not discuss their view of the canon. Since Witnesses do not claim to be Protestant then I think this ought to be clarified in the article. Dtbrown 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There was considerable discussion about this during the last peer review. The previous edit, which said that they accept the "entire Protestant Bible" seemed to convey that JWs and Protestants were similar. I agree with Dtbrown. BenC7 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
They're similar in that they use the protestant bible... what's the problem? I mean, I could really care less what it's called, however, I don't know of any other way to describe the commonly accepted canon of books (minus apocrypha) other than: "the protestant canon/bible". Duffer 04:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The idea was to not give the reader the impression that JWs were Protestant, or that they were like Protestants. The "Protestant Bible" also says that "the Word was God" and similar things. So the word "Protestant" was removed to make the distinction clear.
The current version of the article ("The entire Bible, excluding the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books, is regarded by Jehovah's Witnesses to be the inerrant word of God.") looks great to me, though I've got to say your argument makes no sense. Every bible translates differently yet they are all (the ones without the apocrypha) generally refered to as the "Protestant Canon/Bible". Duffer 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the way it is done right now, would be the best. The view on the Deuterocanonical books needs not to be emphasized in the main article.Summer Song 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This last edit by Summer Song looks good to me Dtbrown 01:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Apocrypha" would be better than "the Deuterocanonical books". It is a simpler word; people won't have to look it up to see what it means. BenC7 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Header Box

The box on the left of the page that starts "Part of the series on Jehovah's Witnesses", is a nice touch as it makes the presentation more uniform with the style of other Wikipedia religious articles. But I'm wondering...why is there a section in that box for "Ex-Members & Critics"? The reason I ask this, is because NO OTHER religious article (that I looked up) on Wikipedia has anything like that in their box. Therefore, though it's not a neutrality problem directly, it is obviously there to swing people towards a biased view against Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore takes a bit away from the informativeness of the series of articles.

Ask yourself...there are a lot of critics and ex-members of Islam, so why aren't some of them listed on the Islam page's box? Why aren't there any for Catholocism or Mormonism? They all have their critics and ex-members. What's the point of listing them? They don't actually have anything to do with what Catholocism, Mormonism, or Islam are about.

This article on JW's is littered with more anti-JW thoughts than any of the religious articles I just mentioned have anti thoughts about themselves. So, are we being more honest here or more biased and directing away from the facts and straight informative nature of what a Wikipedia article should be?

Give it some thought.

--Ando por Fe 00:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Few Religions ban contact with former-members, even when they are your children (when living out of the home). As such, a section on ex-members seems appropriate. As to critics, could this be related to the realativly smaller acceptance as a church that this denomination has, as compared to most mainstreem denominations? Not saying that that would be appropriate, just trying to think it through.

Evangelism

Am I missing something, or is there no single section or subsection about Witnesses' preaching activities, basis for it, as well as their teaching programs?

The full version might read something like this:

"Evangelism"

"Witnesses are known worldwide for their public preaching work, done in residential neighborhoods and in public places where there is a high concentration of people (e.g.: street corners, transit stations, shopping districts). They believe this commission comes from Jesus' words at Matthew 28:19, 20, and also at Matthew 24:14. They believe that there are two facets to this assignment, namely, peaching and teaching."

"Preaching"

"The Witnesses believe that they are to preach the commission of the impending Kingdom of God, including the removing of reproach on God's reputation put upon it by Satan and his demons and the world of ungodly humanity. Thus they believe that their visibility and reputation as preachers (as well as moral code), specifically known by their name, is a "witness," or pronouncement. Regardless of whether people accept their message, they are at some level content to simply let people know what their purpose is."

"Teaching"

"Second only to their preaching is their teaching. They are evangelizers, and call themselves Bible students, but their ultimate goal is not merely to inform, but to make disciples. Their Ministry School and Service Meetings are intended to give the baptized members skills in teaching their faith to others who will listen to them. Instead of just distributing literature, they are intent on teaching those who listen to them at least one point, with the goal of starting a Bible study with the individual, if the peson is spiritually receptive to the truth from gods word. They often use a publication bsaed on bible truths.(the publications are upgraded as the understanding of scriptures are refined and released), referencing other Watch Tower Publications which explain bible truths is important to answer the students' questions about the bible."

The shorter main article version might read like this:

"Evangelism"

"Witnesses believe they are commanded to preach and teach their faith, based on Jesus' words at Matthew 28:19, 20 and Matthew 24:14. They point to the first-century Christians' methods and resulting growth as their precedent, taking literally the phrases "house-to-house" and "door-to-door." They believe that this is a central and fundamental tenet of Christianity, and extend themselves, sometimes to the point of pursuing less demanding secular work so as to devote more time to the preaching work. Their goal is to start home Bible studies with those who express an interest, using a current publication in conjuncton with the Bible, teaching the studetns their beliefs, hoping to convince them to convert."

Naturally, I expect this to be chopped way down, but hopefully you get my general intent. Since preaching is a major component of our faith, it should stand out in the articles, at least adrressed like this as a separate point.

Feedback is appreciated. - CobaltBlueTony 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Something akin to the shorter version under beliefs and practices would be nice I think. I would prefer to see less scriptures, and more watchtower references. There is a critical section for field service, so I would say some sort of parity to this section. joshbuddytalk 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That just means the onus is on me to find articles discussing the scriptures I've cited in the relevant context. I'm on it, but it'll take me a bit longer -- they don't actually PAY me to "wiki." ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, um, yes it does mean that. :) But if its any consolation, I looked up a lot of watchtower articles for the scriptures on here (when I did my mad reference replacement) and you tend to a) learn something about the subject and b) get a reference out of it! Seriously, in looking up all those watchtower articles, I learned some extra things, and could spot some inaccuracies, which was fun.
As an example, you have the phrase "door-to-door" up above. That phrase doesn't occur in any bible I'm aware of. So it seems kind of odd to say they take it literally. I would also object to the phrase "they take literally..." in conjunction with "house-to-house". Its not so much a matter of taking it literally as it is interpreting it differently.
Also, if I were going to include this in the belief section, I would rewrite to match the tone of the rest of those sections. Also, there would be some overlap here, so I think its fair to strip out some info from other sections to amalgamate it here. joshbuddytalk 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The "stripping out" is a good idea, taking away the necessity to explain how the preaching work relates to this or that point, and simply just refer to the preaching work, it already being a coherent subtopic. Of course, matching tone is important, which is why I brought it to the talk page first.
You're right about "door-to-door"; on a side note, the reference Bible says (in regards to R. Franz' objections):

Lit., “according to house.” Gr., kat’ oi′kon. Here ka·ta′ is used with the accusative sing. in the distributive sense. R. C. H. Lenski, in his work The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, Minneapolis (1961), made the following comment on Ac 5:42: “Never for a moment did the apostles cease their blessed work. ‘Every day’ they continued, and this openly ‘in the Temple’ where the Sanhedrin and the Temple police could see and hear them, and, of course, also κατ’ οικον, which is distributive, ‘from house to house,’ and not merely adverbial, ‘at home.’ ”

I found that quite interesting, but wonder how it could be incorporated. Perhaps into this new section? - CobaltBlueTony 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is the rbi8 quote. I don't see how it really defends the watchtower position of consecutive house-to-house visitations. I suppose you could include this in the reference in your material. Would be interesting to see the original quote actually. joshbuddytalk 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's right there ... "κατ’ οικον ... is distributive, ‘from house to house’". How else would they have ascertained who was receptive to their message? If one house says 'no', do they go 'oh well' and leave the city? Or do they just go to the next available house, right next to them? See, it's so simple I don't think anyone's ever had to hash out every minute detail. It's definitely difficult to find from the CD-ROM... Mark 6:7 (NWT) Jesus sends out the apostles "two by two" ahead of him. Luke 10:1 Jesus sends out seventy disciples "by twos". What else were they doing? It seems that the rbi8 reference directly addresses R.F.'s assertation, and that was what was at issue there. - CobaltBlueTony 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The ambiguity of the phrase "house to house" allows you to read it this way. I think if you look at the other ways the NWT renders this greek phrase, you'll see that a "house-to-house" consecutive sense is not what is being implied here (Acts 2:46; Acts 8:3, Acts 20:20). I think that by focusing so closely on this phrase, and not on the first part of that verse, you're missing the sense of what the primary means of preaching that Paul supposedly used being talked about here, specifically, preaching in temples. But hey, if you want to use that footnote, why not? Though I still would enjoy seeing the original quote. joshbuddytalk 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The original text translated as "house to house" in the NWT literally means "according to the houses". The early Christians and people interested in their teachings met in the homes of believers to discuss the scriptures. It is those homes that are referred to, and the context of Acts 20:20 reveals this. Specifically, Paul says that he was with "you" speaking to those were already believers, and it was in their houses that he taught.
The context of "house to house" in Acts has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus sending out his 70 disciples, and there is no evidence that those 70 went to consecutive houses, probably just going to the temple and into marketplaces and so forth.
The context of "house to house" in Acts refers to teaching in the homes of those who were already believers. It was "according to the houses", in the distributive sense in that they congregated at the homes of different believers on different occasions. It has nothing to do with door-to-door preaching.--Jeffro77 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stopping Vandalism

I say it's time that we require editors to the JW articles be registered. What do others think? Dtbrown 05:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The recent spate of vandalism with the 'False Prophecies' rubbish is just annoying.--Jeffro77 07:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It would probably help a lot. You guys have been doing a lot of work reverting, I just downloaded vandalproof and will be playing with it in the sandbox. George 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm glad to see the site semi-protected for now. Unfortunately I had the same problem over on WikiHow, and it doesn't get nearly as much traffic as this does. I had to have that site semi-protected, and had my name disassociated from it because it had become a dumping grounds for anti-JW sentiment. Seems to be working for now. Pretty sad commentary though that people cannot respect the beliefs of others even if they don't share them.

Gambling and free lotteries

It has been contended that a free lottery is not gambling. However, in most jurisdictions, such competitions require permits from the same legislative bodies that regulate lotteries which are not free. Since entering such a free lottery still diminishes the chance of any other individual winning, it could still be seen as contributing to the loss of a potential prize for others, and therefore could be seen as a form of gambling. Additionally, including the reference in the article clarifies what is and is not allowed for Witnesses to get involved in.--Jeffro77 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism - field service

I find it strange that the criticims of field service listed are only those of Franz when the majority of criticisms about JW's and their evangelizing stem from other sources and have more to do with irritation at being disturbed. IF I can rework this without getting attacked I will give it a try but not until after the weekend.George 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up Acts 5:42 in several translations and a large minority (including some very popular translations) render this verse "house to house". Follow this link for some comparison shopping: [1] George 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have other sources of criticism, by all means include them. (Provided they are good sources of course) I'm not really sure what a large minority is, or why you posted the link to biblegateway. After all, this is Ray Franz's criticism. joshbuddytalk 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a large minority would be, say, 20%, as compared to a small minority, which would be, say, 1%. (These figures are illustrative and do not reflect the actual proportions of translations considered.)

In more than 30% of the cases the translations listed at BG use "house to house". THree use the expression "in every house" which takes the average above 50%. It makes Franz a critic of 50% of bible translators.George 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduction of beliefs

I'm thinking that an effective way to reduce this content would be to basically keep the more outstanding points, and otherwise boil down JW beliefs to a single paragraph. I think the most interesting points of belief are blood, preaching, and shunning. Any comments? joshbuddytalk 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting History Section

I think some interesting material was submitted by user:Pastorrussell. However, I also think that changing all our historical links to links from his personal website is not in the best interest of the page. We had actual PDF versions for most of these works and changing them to text versions is not an improvement in my opinion. Could we go a little slower with these changes and discuss them? I don't think some of the edits would be classified as NPOV. For now, I've reverted the section in the interest of opening this up to discussion. Dtbrown 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This user claims his website is supported by the majority of Bible students groups worldwide. If this can be confirmed his links might be acceptable. Problem is, the scanned pdf's are definitely the most reliable form of documentation because they are scans of the originals. I vote for the pdf's. George 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The website, Pastor-Russell.com is the official CT Russell website under the sponsorship and direction of Bible Students worldwide, and is not an individual website. In fact, several of the reference links that WERE there are taken from private websites, and not the official site. The documentation, history, and even some of the neutral re-wording has been unfairly censored. No attempt was made to make undue changes, nor unfair ones. Some historically inaccurate statements were toned down, or gently reworded, while attempting to keep true to the spirit and intent of the entry. The PDFs we are presenting are of extremely scarce documents, nowhere else available, and important to keep the historical record sound. The links that you had previously did NOT link to original source documents, but text PDFs. We are linking to scans of original source documents. Pastorrussell 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think some of my objection to some of these edits are
  • excessive wikilinking
  • some statements about the bible students that I just don't have any basis to support. An example. You changed "Some who disagreed with the changes instituted..." to "Many who disagreed with the changes instituted...". How do I know it was many? How can you claim that?
  • The intro re-write is somewhat clumsy and long.
joshbuddytalk 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's all work on the intro together. We need to incorporate the formation of the movement in as few sentences as possible. We can remove the "excessive wikilinking". That's a matter of personal preference, and doesn't requiring debating or wrangling over. Insofar as the "some" being changed to "many", the context is referring to the dispute around the election, the reaction of the Board, and the resulting affects. There were only a few men on the Board, and once the four who were in favor of following Pastor Russell's Will to the letter had been removed, the Board was now stacked in Rutherford's favor as they were now all in support of him. That is not an opinion, but an historical fact. The schism really grew out of that, and by the end of the 1920s the movement split 75/25 in favor of those Bible Students who opposed the new changes. Pastorrussell 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The wikilinking is not simply a matter of preference. I would defer to the MoS in these cases. I think what you've done to the intro is pretty good. Brevity is our watchword.
And just to be clear, this is no more your article than it is my article. I think more eyes make articles better, so I very much appreciate your input.
I agree that your html versions are just as good as the pdf's that were linked before. Having said that, actual scans would be much better. joshbuddytalk 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
We are working on scans of the FIRST EDITIONS :.) of each of the Studies in the Scriptures, and are ready to put up our scans of Object and Manner / Three Worlds / Food for Thinking Christians, and a couple others. These are PDFs created from scans of the original books. They will be up within the next week. Everything is being updated, and more search capabilities added. The entire site will also be available in sixteen different languages by the end of June. Pastorrussell 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be very interested in seeing these scans when they become available and I applaud your work on these. Dtbrown 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the justification for removing the information about the 1917 schism. It is a documented fact, and not opinion. The documents are now openly available on Pastor-Russell.com, and have even been referenced in some books over the last 30 years. The schism was so great that the Bible Student movement split into about eighteen different branches! The JWs are the largest, but that is beside the point, and our interest is not to repair your entire article, merely the segments that refer to the history from 1870 through 1916, and those matters relating to the schism on up to 1928. Pastorrussell 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User pastorrussell: what documentation can you provide that your site is official?

And why are the texts for the Studies from your site (which are just text files) better than the pdfs that previously were there? Dtbrown 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


The PDFs that you had previously linked to were not scans of the document, but merely text put into page form. The link we put up is searchable. As for the website being the official CT Russell website, it is under the funding, direction, and support of Bible Student ecclesia's worldwide. It is also supported by Russell's only surviving relatives. Pastorrussell 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there documentation to this claim? Dtbrown 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible Students are like Quakers, et. al., in that we do not have a central organization, no "headquarters", no "official" elders, or the like. While there could never be an official Bible Student website, Pastor-Russell.com is the official CT Russell website, and each ecclesia who supported it vote separately. Not all congregations from every offshoot fund it, but most back it up. But if there is a debate over whether or not to use the word "official" then we prefer to go the way of least trouble and simply leave the word out. All that is required is the link, and no descriptions or qualified statements are necessary when accompanying it. Pastorrussell 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask this again: what makes your website the "official CT Russell website"? As I understand Wikipedia rules it is bad form to self-promote your own website in articles here. Dtbrown 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll have to answer you again: it is supported, funded, and directed by the majority of Bible Students WORLDWIDE, and by Russell's only surviving relatives. There isn't much more to say about it. The translation work has been done by Bible Students in Germany, Denmark, France, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, India, Japan, and by others in the USA. The documents made available are owned and distributed by Bible Students worldwide. I don't know what your objection is. If you don't want the word "official" appearing in the link, then it doesn't need to be put there. We prefer to avoid any form of confrontation. If you don't think it can be official because it is not supported by JWs then perhaps I can see your point. Otherwise, this is a non-issue, and we've already discussed it with Wikipedia officials, and been instructed what path to follow. Pastorrussell 05:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a JW. There are several Bible Student groups and yours is just one. Since your site is not official, there is no reason to change all the links in this article to your site. Dtbrown 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you are being quite unreasonable, and your actions inappropriate. I have answered your questions, and followed Wikipedia guidelines. You are altering the article and links in ways that are not correct, and bordering on censorship. Pastorrussell 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I had in mind point number 11 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid

Dtbrown 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Signing in

Anyone else having problems signing in on the main JW page? I'm signed in everywhere else but on the main page? Dtbrown 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the page protected against editing now? Dtbrown 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

You wrote (in your edit summary), "dispute and oppose certain inappropriate changes and censorship to the article and links"

I'm confused. Your changes weren't reverted, and certainly the source material for the early works can hardly fall under the category of either POV or censorship. So why did you re-add this? joshbuddytalk 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't reply to this. I'm moving your tag to the specific section, but I do want to know what it was you found to be NPOV. joshbuddytalk 13:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
By removing the links (and even the statement that the schism occurred) to the sole location of the original source documents, the truth is being whitewashed and supressed. Whether one wishes to put their own interpretation upon the documents is one thing, but to remove the links to them violates neutrality because it openly promotes an agenda to hide the truth. This isn't an issue regarding differences in doctrine, but one that affected the very development of the movement, and the changes in administration in the years following. There was a dispute about the use of links to the official site as being self promoting, and yet the other site used in its place far exceeded those from the official site. On the surface it appears to be a bias because the original location is avoided while another is truly overly promoted. Pastorrussell 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Has this been settled to everyone's satisfaction? joshbuddytalk 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is clearly POV. It reads like a brochure. Actually, it IS a brochure: "To accomplish this, they have prepared this brochure for you." How could someone copy a promotional brochure into this article and then defend its objectivity? Furthermore, I need to see some indication that JWs have gained respect/backing from the international medical community regarding the refusal of blood transfusions (or other interventions). As in citing peer reviewed literature. The author of the sentence in question speaks for the worldwide medical community?rmbh 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A reference is given, perhaps you could come up with a refuting reference? If you feel it reads like a brouchure then read the articles about other religions and you should come to the conclusion that they are not only brochures but outright recruitment documents. This is probably the most referneced, criticism containing article on wikipedia. George 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't need to "refute" the POV, just to identify it and to promote its removal/repair. Secondly, the existence of a potential reference doesn't automatically make it's content worthy of rebuttal. Thirdly, to humor you, I now "refute" the POV and the overall quality of the reference. The reference itself is "Awake!" which is a JW publications and is de facto POV in a JW article. That reference is also invoked out of context: the article does NOT state that there is a (growing or otherwise) worldwide acceptance into the medical establishments of the JW law regarding transfusions. It states certain members of the medical establishment agree with JW's that a class of surgical procedures - one's that do not cause bleeding, and which therefore obviate the need for transfusions- should be further developed.
I now provide a list of "refuting references" althought I again emphasize that this line of refutation is incoherent:
1: Woolley S. Jehovah's Witnesses in the emergency department: what are their rights? Emerg Med J. 2005 Dec;22(12):869-71.
2: McInroy A. Blood transfusion and Jehovah's Witnesses: the legal and ethical issues.Br J Nurs. 2005 Mar 10-23;14(5):270-4.
3: Wilson P. Jehovah's Witness children: when religion and the law collide. Paediatr Nurs. 2005 Apr;17(3):34-7.
4: Ridley DT. Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood: obedience to scripture and religious conscience. J Med Ethics. 1999 Dec;25(6):469-72.
Since we're endeavoring to make/invalidate statements regarding the entire medical profession, all of the above are current, peer-reviewed, review articles. They all support the statement 'Medical practitioners are greatly concerned about respecting JW doctrine while maximizing the patient's welfare' and do not support the statement 'Their stand on refusing blood transfusions has garnered criticism from medical and legal sources but over time has also gained mutual respect and backing from the medical field.' In particular, I have refuted that 'Their stand on refusing transfusions has gained mutual respect and backing from the medical field.'
Lastly, if the other religious articles are also POV, why don't you work on improving them? If all of the religous articles are POV, that means they all need to change. For my two cents, I think the main articles for Judaism or Buddhism are much more NPOV than this page (especially the version I criticized; it appears someone's already expunged most of the worst material). rmbh 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we change our history document links to pastorrussell.com?

What are the views of editors here? Should we change our history document links to pastorrussell.com? Dtbrown 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care that much, but seeing as reexamine is a more JW-centric site, it might be better to keep links going to there (on this article) Certainly on article that deal with the Bible Students specifically then linking to the russell site would make more sense.
On a somewhat unrelated note, the history section is long. Its getting really long. The side article looks like a joke by comparison. Its completely missing references. I think we should just branch the content, GREATLY reduce it on the main page, and move this dispute over there. joshbuddytalk 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As Bible Students we are not looking to change or alter your entire article. We are not JWs. We wish to place the links to the original source documents on the official website. This is an international effort, and has involved a lot of man hours. Do what you want with the article because it's yours, but when it comes to the majority of the pre-1918 history, we have (fortunately, or unfortunately) become the heirs of it, and we seek to make all of it available. Some of the items you were linking to on reexamine were actually swiped from our site, and another Bible Student site, and reexamine still will not properly link, or cite the sources, despite our repeated requests. All of these things are quite frustrating. For me personally it is extremely stressful. I am trying to do my appointed duty by placing links to the direct documents. There is nothing ego-centric about this, nor does it violate Wikipedia rules, guidelines, procedures, or even the spirit of such. Pastorrussell 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this stressing you out? I think you're missing a couple of points here. The article is no ones. The principle you're breaking is Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. I'm not sure what your appointed duty has to do with this article. (And what is that duty btw? Who appointed you?) joshbuddytalk 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


The link you cited specifies "unless it's the official site". I have corresponded with Wikipedia, and have followed their recommendations, and have always followed their published guidelines. As to duty, I've already made that point clear tonite. Many who think they are acting neutrally are actually acting on an agenda, and unfortunately legitimate facts, links, etc... get pushed by the wayside, and a narrow view begins to emerge. We all have goals, but our effort in something like this is to make available the entirety of truth on a subject, or clearly and openly link to an article or website that does so. Such CAN be done with brevity. Pastorrussell 06:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is the official website. Is there some proof you can proffer as to that claim? Thanks. joshbuddytalk 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
JWs moved away from Pastor Russell's books, views, eschatology, congregational arrangement, administration, and then formed an organized religion. Those who left when such changes began represented the majority of Bible Students. Bible Students were scattered and unclear what course to follow after this shocking turn of events. In time, they got together, and ecclesia's (congregations) began to cooperate, share elders, share conventions, reprint Russell's works, etc... As a result, Bible Students are the historical heirs of CT Russell. We have maintained the history, the documents, etc... Bible Students wanted to have an official website to document the life, ministry, and legacy of Pastor Russell, and work has even been done to make a book along these same lines. Because we have no central headquarters, there are no president's or popes to direct what someone does. What happens is that each ecclesia decides what they prefer, and if, such as in this case, they wish to support something, they vote to do so. This was done worldwide. Also, Russell's only surviving relatives stand by the website as official. Apparently I'm going to have to put up a page listing the vote of every ecclesia worldwide and scan the letter from the relatives to satisfy some of you guys. Pastorrussell 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you would I'm afraid. (color me skeptical) I get about a half a dozen ghits on bible student websites that look pretty "official". (Like biblestudents.net) I'm just surprised that if Russell's descendants stand by your site, why you didn't include a statement about it on the site itself.
If it is organized the way you say though, wouldn't having an official website sort of be the antithesis of that sort of organizational arrangement? joshbuddytalk 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me state first off that I appreciate your approach to this discussion. You are far friendlier and more reasonable than the other fellow. Skepticism is a good thing, but unyielding doubt is not. There are no official "Bible Student" websites, that is, there are no websites that represent the entirety of views, beliefs, practices, etc... of Bible Students. Each congregation is autonomous, and Bible Students have many branches, so there never will be an official Bible Student website. The sites you see when doing a Google search are those sites made by individual congregations. Biblestudents.net is a private site run by an individual (not a congregation) out of New Jersey. He was simply faster than others at getting the domain name. All you will ever see are official CONGREGATION websites, not "Bible Students" as a whole. Pastor-Russell.com, however, is the officially sanctioned CT Russell website. There are congregations that chose not to support it for their own reasons, but the majority do. The only surviving relatives in Connecticut do as well. I don't see a reason to debate this, since it is a matter of logic to link to the source that provides the material. You guys are using another domain to do that, and they aren't an official anything. You have more links pointing to reexamine than any other. So, there is a bias on your end that you are apparently blind to. Pastorrussell 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline says: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article)." The subject of the article is JW history. Certainly you as a Bible Student should be able to comment on the history to make sure it's accurate. But, this is not the place to self-promote your website since this article is about JWs and not Bible Students. Dtbrown 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You are missing something ... the history of JWs includes the history of Bible Students. Therefore, the official internet repository of historical data (Pastor-Russell.com) is what should be linked to when it is speaking or citing such history or events. JWs no longer publish his works, yet his works are part of the history. JWs no longer have involvement in the 1917 schism, but they are part of the history. So you then go to who does have this material, and when doing so determine the best source. The official source is always the best, but others should be cited or referenced when the official site is lacking in something. I take great offense to your repeated statement "your website" and "self-promote". You seem to have a great bias or blindness to everything that has been discussed tonite. So far it seems that you are the sole guardian of this article, so should I come to you for each change? Pastorrussell 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I've never said that. You come here claiming your site is official with no proof. We welcome editors here. But, you should not be promoting your site here. Dtbrown 07:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that, by your words and actions. I will no longer discuss this with you since the echo coming off that wall is giving me a headache. Your bias is so great that even you cannot see it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take a step back so you can. Wikipedia will be approached with this. They have previously stood by our efforts to prevent censorship and domineering editors. Pastorrussell 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think approaching Wikipedia is a good idea. Would you please submit the necessary proof that your website is actually the official C.T. Russell website? Did Russell's estate establish your site? Or have they accorded it that designation? Or are you just an individual Bible Student who has the support of some other Bible Students? Since this is the JW article, do the Witnesses consider your website to be the official C.T. Russell website? Dtbrown 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a couple of the links from pastorrussell.com are good. I like the pdf of Jonas Wendell's booklet, for example, from his site. As to the length of the history article there is a discussion above on that. Dtbrown 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Russell's Will Forbid the Publication of New Material After His Death?

User pastorrussell,

Could you cite the exact words for your source that Russell's Will forbid the publication of new material after his death? What would the function of the editorial committee be if it could not oversee the publication of new material? Dtbrown 06:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pastor Russell had numerous articles and written discourses that had never been published. It was his request that these be used and published in the pages of the Watch Tower. The editorial committee was formed to both write and examine submitted articles to the Tower, as well as follow Russell's wishes outlined in the Will. "As the Society has already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree..." The letter of his Will, as well as the spirit, made it clear that other than the Watch Tower magazine, OTQ tracts, the six volumes and Tabernacle Shadows, nothing else was to be published. His efforts and intent were to prevent the establishment of an organized religion that would press their will upon others. Pastorrussell 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit said no new material, yet you mention articles submitted to the Watch Tower. Periodicals are mentioned in the Will. But, nothing is said about Watchtower articles or even books, though certainly Russell would have envisioned they would have been supervised by the editorial committee. Dtbrown 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate. I'm here to correct factual errors that have to do with CT Russell and the Bible Students which are parts of the JWs early history, as well as make available the links to original source documents from the OFFICIAL WEBSITE. If you don't think what I've said is correct, then please go to the library and do some research to verify it for yourself. The prohibition to print new material was clear to all, and in order for Rutherford to go around it he had to declare parts of the Will illegal, and dismiss four Board members he didn't like. Pastorrussell 07:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


This is starting to tread on original research. joshbuddytalk 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell's talk page reveals that he still need to learn how to work here on Wikipedia. He doesn't even represent the estate of Russell, so how exactly is his information "official"? What needs to be determined is if his presentation of "the facts" is accepted by other non-JW Bible student descendents. If they agree, that can add to the reputableness of his claiming to represent a documented segment of people. - CobaltBlueTony 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

pastorrussell...I never said I agreed with Rutherford's course of action. But, you have not cited one line that said no new material could be produced. Dtbrown 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"As the Society has already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree..." That statement made it a legal requirement, and in order to go around it so as to publish new material, Rutherford had to have that clause declared illegal. Pastorrussell 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Russell was referring to other periodicals. The Memorial issue of the Watch Tower (December 1, 1916) reported Russell saying this regarding the 7th volume:

“we inquired respecting the Seventh Volume, and received his answer, "Some one else can write that."” (Reprints, page 6005) From: http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r6001.htm

I think, however, that Russell envisioned the editorial committee would have been involved in that, however.Dtbrown 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Your understanding is wrong, the reference taken out of context, and contradictory of the recorded historical facts. Doing some unbiased research might help. 71.74.198.181 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is 71.74.198.181 pastorrussell? Well, I was trying my best. Apparently we disagree on this. Dtbrown 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe, Pastorrussell, you are straying into the areas of original research and POV pushing. Your contributions are very valuable, but at the same time, we need to have consensus and also have citable sources for claims made in the article. joshbuddytalk 03:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


"As the Society has already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree." --Last Will and Testament

"DO YOU KNOW that Bro. Russell donated "The Watch Tower," the B.S.M. and the copyrights of the "Studies in the Scriptures," and various other booklets, hymn-books, etc., to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society with the explicit understanding that after his death they should be conducted according to his direction and wishes? (See Z, Dec. 1, 1916, page 358)" -- Facts for Shareholders, page 12 (and backed up by other references throughout the issued papers and pamphlets, as well as anti-JW books published in the last 30 years) Pastorrussell 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Informal Poll of JW Editors

Do you consider the pastorrussell.com site to be the "official C.T. Russell website"? Dtbrown 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Because technically speaking, there really is no "official" website. The man is deceased, so there really can be no "official" website because those who claim some heritage to him differ widely on him. Objectively speaking, the producer of that site is presenting material from his/her own viewpoint, and his/her refutation(s) of specific points of our viewpoint would be viewed in the same light as our against his/hers.
It would be the same as if I tried to produce an "official" website on my late grandfather. Other family members may have legitimate differences/objections to what I said or how I presented, no matter how objective it seemed.- CobaltBlueTony 16:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
JWs do not consider it the official website, but they have also removed themselves from Pastor RUssell's doctrines, administration, organization, and practices. Those who represent him are Bible Students who were the majority who left following Rutherford's changes. Although there are different branches, the differences are in shades of doctrine, and not in the facts surrounding the life, ministry, and legacy of Pastor Russell. The material is not produced from "his/her own viewpoint", but represents documented history, and supported by Bible Students worldwide from all the different branches, and by his only surviving relatives. That constitutes it official. Pastorrussell 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is provide the documentation you assert gives you the right to claim you run the official site.George 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

None of us who envisioned and worked on the site ever thought that there would be even one person that would require "documentation" of its official status. Apparently we will have to now create a page on the site with statements from the Secretary of each ecclesia, and a scan of the letters from the surviving relatives. This seems to be overkill, but if it is the only way to prove the history of the 1917 schism, and authorize links to the sole location of the documents that back it up, then so be it. It will take some weeks to do this, however, as this is convention season. Pastorrussell 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


This is becoming incredibly self-promotional. joshbuddytalk 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I disagree. It has become incredibly ridiculous. What was formerly an effort to link to the sole location of historical documents has become a debate of the official status of the website providing those documents. What this has done is cloud the real issue, which is to prove that the 1917 schism actually occurred, that it is extensively documented, and that it had a permanent impact upon the formation of the movement. Pastorrussell 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How is your site the "sole location of historical documents"? The links formerly pointed to: http://www.biblestudents.net/history/ You have changed the ones that relate to the 1917 schism to links from your site (which all contain "pastorrussell.com" stamped in the background). The links from www.biblestudents.net cover most of what you have on the 1917 Schism. Other sites also contain valuable historical documents. What about the "Bible Student Library" at http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/ or the "Harvest Truth Database" at http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/start.htm  ? Your site is not the "sole location" of such documents. You are doing admirable work. I especially applaud your effort in making files of first editions of Russell's works. Having said that, your site is not official and is not exempt from Wikipedia's rules about self-promotion. Neither do Witnesses recognize your site as official. If the editors' consensus is that your links are superior then I'd say let's use them instead. I liked your link (despite the background promo) of Wendell Jonas' booklet. I don't know what the others think. But coming in here and changing most of the historical links to ones from your site violates Wikipedia rules about self-promotion. Dtbrown 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


All of your statements have been dealt with more than once. Your mental block and bias are positively beyond shocking, and I refuse to discuss this with you any further. We are the sole location of the actual documents made in PDF form. The other sites you mentioned are private websites, not congregation websites, and do not have international support, funding, or direction. Biblestudents.net got the material from us and the other only has text form. The original documents are watermarked to protect them from misuse and exploitation from individuals such as yourself and others who have proven no interest in truth. As much as it pains me to candidly state this, attempting to discuss anything with you has proven itself to being like talking to a wall. You are responsible for clouding this issue, and diverting attention away from the original intent, which is 100% backed by Wikipedia officials, and 100% in line with both the spirit and letter of all guidelines. Thank you. Pastorrussell 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If, as Pastorrussell has stated, the initial producer of the sourced PDF files is pastorrussell.com, these should be referenced as a more primary source than the copies and derivates. It matters very little whether or not they are the "official" anything, though indeed, it seems unlikely that anyone can claim to host the official site of a deceased individual. --Vengeful Cynic 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the files were first produced as part of Bible Student Library. Research Applications produced pdf files a few years back.Dtbrown 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the original links to these articles that were in the article until user pastorrussell changed them to files from his site. Dtbrown 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


The items were never produced as part of the "Bible Student Library" under Research Applications. The documents are exclusively in the possession of Bible Students, and two of them are the only known copies to still exist. Please stop calling it "his site". Pastorrussell 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotional links

Pastorrussel, your continued insistence on linking to your own website contravenes the spirit and specifically the rules around linking to web resources. Please desist this behaviour. You need to allow other editor to determine the value of these links in this specific case.

Also, with regards to your continued insistence on the NPOV tag, please state exactly what you find objectionable. You have thus far been counter-productive with regards to fixing your own complaint. joshbuddytalk 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I beg to differ: what has been counter-productive is the insistence that it is not the official website, which was never the issue to begin with. Whether you want to accept the status of the site or not is irrelevant. The website is the only one on the web that provides scans of the original documents, which is all that matters. Other sites contain PDF/HTML of nothing but the text itself, and as a result can cause some to question it's validity. Scans of the originals clearly reveal the true words and layout within the document. The problem is that you keep calling it "your site", which is really distracting from the real issue. By removing these important links, the truth is being censored. By denying that these events happened you are white-washing JW history. I do not know what your motive is, but mine is to assure that history is not covered up. This is not about self-promotion - it is about fair and open access to the truth. I don't believe covering up history falls under the authority of 'other editors', because that is what is known as 'history revisionism'. The link to "several documents" has been removed twice, and doing so violates the claim to neutrality, therefore I dispute any claim that that specific section is neutral. It has been claimed that placing the two links to Pastor-Russell.com is self-promotion, yet the reexamine.info link is placed several times throughout the article. There is a great deal of inconsistency here, and based upon what has happened thus far it can be referred to as nothing but censorship. Pastorrussell 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A proper WP:AGF refresher is what is needed here. You believe that you are merely adding facts, but what you are really doing is presenting a viewpoint about JWs based on your interpretation of selected facts which support your inferences. The same could be said of the JW-affiliated editors, if one were to be fair. However, the non-Witness editors' opinions are invaluable, as they hold neither view of the whole collection of facts. This is key to presenting the facts per WP:NPOV. You have not yet provided us with evidence that you are not one person or a handful of people. Nor have you provided us with evidence that any Bible Student group regards your site as reflective of their views regarding JW/Bible Student history. You simply assert taht your site is official - a claim which lack any credibility. It is with this "official" label that you hope to promote your information as tautologically accurate, while it continues to beg the question for support. Yet now you must accept the scrutiny of the non-Witness editors, who continue to be unconvinced, not simply on the basis of the information you provide, but on the type of editor you keep proving yourself to be. Wikipedian editors are repeatedly admonished to "assume good faith" and remain civil". Yet you are bordering on violating both of those with your heated tones and inferences to presumably neutral editors (simply because they have challenged you).
Your presentation needs work/help. This venue is well suited for you to present your information, but you cannot do original research. There are ways to present what you wish to, and ways to convince other editors taht your arguments have encyclopedic merit. I strongly advise you to readjust your approach in such a way as to effectively and intelligently promulgate your thoughts without succumbing to incivility or tautologic debates. - CobaltBlueTony 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a few separate issues here. Though you want to change this specific article, you are better off putting detailed information in the side article History of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have been making an effort to reduce the level of detail to the bare minimum needed for this article.
The specific sentence was "Dissension and schisms ensued in local congregations as a result of these events, with the debate from both sides repeatedly published in several booklets between 1917 to 1922." I have NO problem with this sentence. I have no problem with the link your site that presents these booklets (though I would prefer to see the individual booklets listed then going to a page on your site) The reason I removed it was purely out of space concerns. I left in the 1917 schism statement, but the fact that there were several booklets dealing with the issue seemed to detailed for this article. The relevant document here is Summary style. We don't want to exhaust the reader with details.
I would say go ahead and put them on the subpage, and if you're going to make a direct link, please put it in a footnote, not actually linking the text itself.
As for linking to your site, all I would ask is you do it as little as possible. I understand there might be documentation that is unavailable else where, and by all means, if its relevant, use it.
I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I don't care one wit about preserving any sort of official WT history. I've complained numerous times about official WT history and many glaring examples if inaccuracies and omissions. joshbuddytalk 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand your point now, and understand why you would want to link to the PDFs rather than to the page that provides them. Could we not just link them in the footnotes? Obviously, they do not all need to be linked to, but the most significant ones should. (you may or may not notice that the biblestudents.net page, which is a personal website, quotes from Pastor-Russell.com word-for-word when referencing the documents, although using HTML instead) In regards to a statement made by another, the "heated arguments" have been on both sides. I do apologize for saying anything that seemed heated. Take a moment to look at it from my perspective: you were all ganging up on me, using unecessarily harsh and forceful words which made the discussion unecessarily tense, requiring me to reply as forcefully. When it appears as though a very small group of editors that are taking charge are deeming historically significant documents as not appropriate, it seemed to be censoring the truth. To have a noble group effort blatantly referred to as "self-promotion", and other strongly worded denials of truth, makes for confrontational discourse no matter which side one is on. With all due respect, as you have encouraged me to look at my approach, my advice would be for all of you to do the same. A couple of you are coming off as holier-than-thou, and that this is your article which nobody else can touch without being faced with rabid and dogged criticism. Pastorrussell 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have come across that way I apologize. It was not my intention to look that way at all. Your first edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=55637808&oldid=55534207 contained 18 links to your site. So, if I appeared "rabid" it was perhaps an over-reaction to which again I apologize. As far as the links themselves...If other editors see fit to use your links I have no objection. I will go with the consensus of what the other editors say. Dtbrown 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No one denies the 1917 Schism happened. So, how is this revisionism? I'm not sure why you bring up the reexamine.org site. It's not my site. So, I don't understand why you refer to it in this discussion of self-promotion. Some editors here may indicate a preference for links from there but that's the judgment call of the editors. Personally, I find the watermarks on your files extremely distracting which is one reason I originally linked to the biblestudent.net site. I happen to personally own some of these booklets and would have no qualms about scanning copies of them and making them freely available since they are in the public domain. As to the link to "other documents." This goes to a page on your site which is heavily POV and even includes an opportunity for the visitor to ask for a free booklet. This is totally inappropriate for a link from the main text of an article. In the text of a main article, links should go to the text of a historical document. Not to a page with conclusions and interpretations of the texts. Dtbrown 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Josh, second time You've netioned inaccuracies with no specifics. Since I don't care to read Franz's book I guess I'll have to wait until you have a specific comment to make. ;) BTW did you see what I posted about the house to house verses? George 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote above:
I think the 1925 one in the proclaimers book is both pretty easy to find, and pretty easy to verify as to it being inaccurate. I believe the proclaimers book claims that after the failure of 1925, not many left. This is completely false. As well, the proclaimer book neglects to mention many significant events in the history of JWs. Both of those are off the top of my head, and you're really better off consulting books as a source then some random internet site.
Specific things left out of the Proclaimers book would be a large list. Olin Moyle, Ray Franz, Greenless are three big ones that come to mind.I suggested reading "Apocalypse Delayed" which was written by Penton. I consider it a very neutral book. joshbuddytalk 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the house to house vss, I don't think anyone is contending that "house to house" isn't a valid translation (not even Franz). Simply that it did not carry the concept of consecutive house to house visitations. Continuation of that discussion (which I'm welcome to having) would be best left for email I believe. joshbuddytalk 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Currently we have:

Jehovah's Witnesses is an international religion that claims to be the restoration of first-century Christianity.

I understand the argument for "is" instead of "are" but it sure sounds odd. Could we perhaps have:

Jehovah's Witnesses is the name of an international religion...

or something similar? Dtbrown 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Jeffro changed it to something a little saner sounding? By all means just go do it, no one will get upset if you make it read well. joshbuddytalk 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I made the current edit to fix the previous incorrect grammar as a concession after someone reverted my previous edit, which clarified that the organisation (singular) and its members (plural) are both ambiguously referred to as 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. If you can make it sound better and still be grammatically correct, go for it. I think that my earlier edit, indicating that the name is applied both to the organisation and to its members, would be the most appropriate phrasing.--Jeffro77 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone said in a comment: "most religions have the same name for the group as for individual members". That is just plain wrong. Most religions distinguish between the name of the organization and the term given to its members. Catholics belong to the Catholic Church, Anglicans belong to the Church of England, Mormons belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Muslims belong to Islam, Buddhists belong to Buddhism but Jehovah's Witnesses belong to Jehovah's Witnesses. Just which are the "most religions" that ambiguously use the same name in the same manner as Jehovah's Witnesses??? The opening sentence of the article is currently grammatically incorrect.--Jeffro77 13:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Josh it is both grammatically incorrect and awkward to a JW. George 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Josh also. However, I think we need to remove the "The". It's not normal usage among JWs to refer to themselves that way. I'll remove it for now. What is the consensus of the editors? Do we follow a strict grammatical construction or do we follow common usage among JWs? Dtbrown 23:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"Jehovah's Witnesses are an internation religion" is NOT correct grammar. If the religion's rules were determined collectively by all of its members, it could be grammatically correct, at a stretch. However because the religion's doctrines are determined by a select body, and because the name functions in the singular as the name of an organisation, it is not at all appropriate to use a plural verb when referring to 'Jehovah's Witnesses' as an organisation.--Jeffro77 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What do other editors think? Dtbrown 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What about "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an internation[al] religion"...? - CobaltBlueTony 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In a strictly logic-based approach, such a phrase does not indicate what that "international religion" is called, of which "Jehovah's Witnesses" are members. The article should not maintain the ambiguity caused by the Witnesses' dual usage of the term for both the organisation and its members. (Is anyone aware of another religion that employs similar ambiguity?)--Jeffro77 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone asked 'do we have to make a big deal of this?' No, it doesn't have to be a big deal at all. Why is there such a push to leave it grammatically incorrect?? As far as being an informative article goes, it should recognise the ambiguity in the Witnesses' use of the term.--Jeffro77 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should recognize the customary usage employed by JWs. If the article should make a point on this (and I don't really think we should) it would belong buried in a footnote, not in the opening line of the article. Dtbrown 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
'Ambiguous use' is not the intent, nor will you find any documentation using that suggestive phrasing. A Witness knows he/she is to say "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "I am a Jehovah's Witness," but colloquial usage all around us tends to make it easier to simply accept others' incorrect grammar, or even use it him/herself. Someone who is a member of the Catholic Church can be said to be "a Catholic," but some Catholics might prefer to be called "Catholic" as both an adjective (which helps define them from their perpective) and a name of a religion. Similarly, Witnesses' meaning of their own name is meant to convey a thought or idea about who they define themselves to be. It is collective and indicates perceived possession by Jehovah of them. - CobaltBlueTony 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure what you're driving at with "suggestive phrasing"; it sounds like trying to defend something that isn't even under attack. It isn't 'suggestive' of anything except the plain fact of ambiguity. It is a simple fact that the plural form of JW members is the same as the name of the organisation, and this is an ambiguous term that is not the case with most religions in general. (When is the Catholic Church ever referred to as simply "Catholic". They never say "I'm a member of Catholic"? Reference to colloquial adjectival forms is not even relevant in the discussion.) Additionally, "colloquial usage" is not what defines what is suitable for an introductory paragraph in an encyclopaedia. The opening sentence currently indicates that Jehovah's Witnesses are people who are of an unnamed religion.--Jeffro77 10:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What is ambiguous? They are Jehovah's Witnesses. He/she is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is meant to be used in a grammatically correct manner. I've never heard anyone say "I'm a member of the Catholic Church." The usage is much more commonly, "I'm Catholic." Even, "I'm Buddhist," or "I'm a Buddhist", rarely if at all "I'm a member of the Buddhist faith." If it's membership you wish to describe, then they "are members of an international religion collectively known as Jehovah's Witnesses". Institutional nomenclature is not part of their heritage. Previously, they called themselves "Bible Students," another institution-less group. - CobaltBlueTony 15:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I must be mistaken. Obviously there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the fact that 'publishers' of Jehovah's Witnesses distribute literature published by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope we are not discussing whether the religion has a name. Surely everyone agrees that the religion itself is called Jehovah's Witnesses. Then clearly the phrase Jehovah's Witnesses is ambiguous. It could refer to the religion (the set of beliefs, etc.); or to the institution, with its Governing Body, etc., or to the indivituals who hold those beliefs; or to the individuals accepted by the institution (as it does in the first sentence currently). Now, the opening sentence of an article should say what X is (in the singular), not what Xs are (in the plural). In other words, this article should begin "Jehovah's Witnesses is...", or should be titled "Jehovah's Witness" and begin "A Jehovah's Witness is any...". The latter would be analogous to article about "Catholic" or "Hindu", which do exist, or an article about "Buddhist" or "Wiccan", which do not. It is conventional to have an article about a group itself (described as a noun); an article about its members (an adjective) is optional. There are articles about "Buddhism", "Abolitionism", "Communism", etc. If we agree that the religion in question is called Jehovah's Witnesses, then the first sentence should begin "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion whose members believe it is the ...". And perhaps an additional sentence could be "A Jehovah's Witness is any member of the religion.". -Pgan002 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly or not, I've never done anything on a "wiki" before. I hope I dont mess anything up. Anyway, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I would just like to let you know that. While we dont really mind when someone says like "Are you a Jehovah's Witness?" on something like this, the sentence "One of Jehovah's Witnesses is any memeber of the religion. . " would be more accurate. Because the name is descriptive, and possesive. Saying "A Jehovah's Witness" is indeed grammatically incorrect. It would be like the difference between seeing a car and saying "Thats one of John's cars." and saying "Thats a John's car." Now please, I dont want to ruffle anyones feathers, I just wanted to give you the opinion of a Witness. (And we dont mind being referred to as "a Witness", its just kind of informal) But I do wish to say that I am impressed with the article as a whole. For the most part its very accurate and I personaly didnt get a vibe of bias in it.-Darkranger85 01:19, 13 October 2006

The name "Jehovah's Witness" functions as a proper noun (unlike 'John's car' in the technically inaccurate analogy), identifying a member of the religious group, "Jehovah's Witnesses", regardless of the meaning of the individual words. In view of that (and in the interests of avoiding wordy prose) it is correct to say "a Jehovah's Witness". Further, when referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses" as an organization, it is proper to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is", because the name of the organization functions in the singular. However, when referring to a group of members of the religion, it is proper to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are".--Jeffro77 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

When it says "critics say" (or contend, etc.) It seems Raymond Franz is the only critic mentioned in 90% of the cases. I know there are other critics besides Franz. George 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

People are welcome to add criticism from other critics. I wish people would.
Just a note on some recent edits, be careful not to water down arguments from the opposing side. Both sides need to be presented sincerely. joshbuddytalk 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From George's talkpage: Josh: The phrase "house-to-house" is not the greatest occurance between all three verses. The chart in his book makes it pretty clear. I can scan it in and include if you want further documentation.

Thank you, Josh, my problem then lies with why the information is there. Franz must have been very careful to select translations which were sympathetic to his view. My personal research (I provided the link to show where anyone else could see the frequency for themselves) shows that in the most common and highly regarded translations available, 'house to house' does occur more often than these other phrases unless you combine them. Also I believe you said his criticism was about the interpretation of the phrase "house to house", not the translating of it one way or the other. What then does the insertion of the 27 translations comment contribute to? A point not related to the article: if Franz was making the point for interpretation why did he need the 27 translations in the first place? I think it should at least be worded differently. I will leave it alone for a while though since there is so hard work being done on the technical stuff. George 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "Critical Views" subheading and placing the relevant paragraphs within the relevant sections of the individual beliefs, as there are too few topics listed in the section (mostly being about disfellowshipping, which is discussed directly above), and the heading level (and formatting) is the same as that of the beliefs, making it not immediately obvious to a reader whether it is considering critical views directed at or held by JWs.--Jeffro77 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on 1916-1942 history section

So what is the resolution on this? Pastorrussell, are you satisfied with the explanations given so far? I haven't seen you make any recent changes to History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you going to add links to the individual publications in a footnote? I welcome your input. joshbuddytalk 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the history needs to be abbreviated, as you have done. However, because the history is in fact mentioned, there should be appropriate links to the pertinent documents. Although there were over a dozen going back and forth, there should be present in the footnotes links to both the Harvest Siftings booklets, and the two main dissenting works, Light After Darkness, and Facts for Shareholders. Original document scans are available at Pastor-Russell.com, and it would be more logical to use those rather than to link to a private website that only uses the HTML text. I would like to link to those four in the footnotes, but don't want to be ganged up on again, so will leave it to you to do it. Pastorrussell 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You won't get ganged up on. Go ahead and make the change. You've been very patient with explaining your thinking, and I personally appreciate that. joshbuddytalk 02:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the direct links to the source document PDFs in a footnote. I was also able to remove one redundant sentence in the summary. The facts about the Board members was a little twisted up. Pastorrussell 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally appreciate the work that Pastorrussell has done in that section and feel that the section needs more work. Repeated incremental changes have built up to the point that the first section of the paragraph is a monstrosity and the whole segment could use to be retooled. That said, I'm probably going to have to violate WP:BOLD and pass on this oppurtunity to contribute on the grounds that I'm a coward who dislikes flame-baths and reworking large sections of controversial articles tends to get one roasted. --Vengeful Cynic 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to further abbreviate the section, but only with the consent of others. Attempts in the past have been met with strict opposition by a few. Pastorrussell 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

interesting article

[2]

Peer Review

It is misleading to state on the discussion page that a peer review has occurred, as the archived 'peer review' contains only the request there for. There is no evidence that it has been peer reviewed, and no one at all left any comments following the request for peer review. I am therefore removing the template.--Jeffro77 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading

Howcome Greg Stafford isn't listed for further reading, his work (in terms of supportive scholarship/apologia), is easily more valuable than anything currently listed (except maybe JWU). I know the amount of links is generally a concern; why not replace the 'Faith on the March' link, as it's already available on the last Supportive link (Strictly Genteel Theocratic Resources). For anyone who is unfamiliar with Stafford: http://elihubooks.com/ . This is a change I would like to see; comments? Duffer 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree his work is noteworthy. Is he still a Witness? My understanding is that he isn't. Dtbrown 07:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe he is. There was a rumor circulating that he had been DF'd, but I try not to put any stock into that. But regardless if he is, or isn't, his work is none the less undeniable. We also can't forget about brother Furuli's extensive work either. I think we can ditch "Faith on the March" (as it's already available from the Genteel Resources Link), and also replace "A People for His Name" as that one is largely unavailable. Duffer 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Any objections? I'll wait a day. Duffer 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm the one to address this as I'm not a Witness. However, I do think Stafford's status with the JW organization could be important. His latest works are advertised on an ex-JW site: http://www.xjw.com/ I've read a letter of his dated January 2003 where he says:
"I have reason to believe that at one time Jehovah did in fact use this organization to highlight important truths in his Word, such as his name and identity, but that somewhere along the line the organization was taken over by men who do not have as their primary goal the revealing of Bible truth in a Christ-like manner. I believe that, as has happened with so many other well-intentioned Christian groups (even many first century followers of Christ), imperfection and sin have been allowed to grow unchecked and ultimately they have infected the organization so that it has run far off course. If it is Jehovah's will to remove those in the organization who are allowing false teachings and heavy-handed governance of his people to flourish then I will be on the look for the changes." taken from: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/43676/1.ashx
What concerns me is this: since he is preparing a new edition of his work will it reflect these sentiments? Perhaps we should wait to see what the new edition actually says before we put him up as a pro-JW source. Dtbrown 06:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Having thought some more on this...I think I would go with the consensus of the JW editors on this. Dtbrown 07:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just read this: Stafford has just announced his intention to return to the Organization. http://www.elihubooks.com/greg-stafford/another.htm

Dtbrown 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC Failed?

Did it fail because Cestus said no? That's like a Nazi voting on a Jewish issue.. Duffer 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the FAC failed because, while the article has come a long way, it is still not up to Featured status for a number of reasons. I believe that user:Joshbuddy understood this when he nominated but had received no feedback from an eariler request for peer review and rightly understood that we would get lots of good suggestions from an (admittedly premature) attempt to get the article featured. --Vengeful Cynic 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism in lead in

The criticisms in the lead in are a summary of the criticisms below. They don't need to be sources particularly well, just sum up the spirit of the criticisms in the article itself.

As far as positive statements about blood, where in the article are their positive statements that you'd like to summarize? joshbuddytalk 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy- it just seems that, "Their unique stand on refusing blood transfusions has garnered publicity and controversy as has their practice of shunning former members.", not only makes the point but it gets rid of the "interpretation" or as you say, "conclusion". However, criticism is appropriate under the heading "Critical Views" but is it necessary and appropriate in the beginning? Usually a summary appears at the end of the points not before the points are even made. It appears that the sentence above makes the point very clear namely, That Blood and shunning have brought about controversy, why the need to slant it anymore? Johanneum 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Slant it? Are you not assuming good faith here? I'm merely attempting to comply with WP:LEDE as well as comments made in the failed FAC. The article contains a critical views section, and yet, doesn't reference them in the lead section. It doesn't really matter about arguments being made, the article itself must sustain whatever statements are being made in the lead section. As well, I never used the word "interpretation" or "conclusion". joshbuddytalk 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Josh for the confusion. When I said "conclusion" I was refering to a recent change you made on another page. You highlighted that the conclusion should not be there. Just wondering if it was/is consisent to have it here? Johanneum 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When other people draw conclusions, we naturally highlight these. It is inappropriate to draw our own conclusions however. joshbuddytalk 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase:
"The practice of shunning former members has brought criticism as an arbitrary and punitive process."
Makes it sound as if WP says that JW's practice of shunning is arbitrary and punitive. While punitive seems to fit, arbitrary is an opinion. Therefore the change to:
"The practice of shunning former members has brought criticism that it is an arbitrary punitive process."
Seems more correct and would omit the 'slant' referred to by Johanneum. George 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've streamlined the prose further. joshbuddytalk 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro, why doesn't criticism belong in the lead-in? This was specifically mentioned in the failed FAC, and not having it is ignoring the guidelines in WP:LEDE. joshbuddytalk 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong because it is too specific for the nature of an introduction. The claim leaving it out is ignoring Wikipedia guidelines for the lead-in is rediculous. Also, the order has been mangled again so that it talks about blood, jumps to disfellowshipping, back to blood, and then to disfellowshipping. If you insist that criticism is important in the introduction (which it isn't), at least make it logical.--Jeffro77 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you read WP:LEDE? Salient points.
  • The lede should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer (what editors can agree are...) the topics most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies.
  • The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
  • some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article
Feel free to fix to order. What part of the guidelines are you suggesting would allow leaving out the controversy?
From our failed FAC:
  • The lead section could touch on more of the contorversies surrounding the church, and should be two or three paragraphs, comprising 8 to 12 sentences, in length. Specifically, the subsections under "critical views" are most in need of expansion.
  • Lead is not a summary of the article, completely avoids discussion on critisims and opposition which domainate the later parts of the article.
Please clarify your position. joshbuddytalk 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not contending that controversy never has a place in lead-in paragraphs, but the paragraph just doesn't read well. It gives a summary of beliefs and then abrubptly and very briefly mentions a couple of controversial issues in the same paragraph. If the controversies should be mentioned at all, they should be expanded upon and not in the same paragraph as the summary of beliefs.--Jeffro77 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Penton is neutral

How can Penton's book be considered neutral when he himself is a critic? Because, I believe, a book should be judged on the merits of its contents, not based on who wrote it. Have you read the book? joshbuddytalk 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


“…still hostile to society in general.” Page 3
Compares JW's to Hitler. Page 5
Calls JW’s totalitarian. Page 5
Compared to soviet Russian government. Page 5
All these are in the introduction. There are other comments spread out over several sentences which when read result in a negative thought. If this book is like any other, the introduction sets the tone for the rest of the work. He is obviously critical. I really don’t think I need to read the rest of the book. George 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You must be thinking of another book. Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics Under Persecution? joshbuddytalk 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidently that book *is* critical. His first book Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada is postive. The book listed in the resources however is very neutral in tone and content. joshbuddytalk 04:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read the first five pages from this link. Does everyone else think that George m's characterization of the contents on this book is fair? I find your summary to be inaccurate and misleading, though not intentionally so. joshbuddytalk 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Penton's book is one of the only works (perhaps the only work) published by a University press on Jehovah's Witnesses in print. A Witness might take offense at some of the statements made (though I think George is reading too much into the statements he cites). Due to its singular status it deserves to be listed here. Since Penton is an ex-Witness he is viewed much more critically than if he had written the book as an outsider. Personally, I think the average person reading the book would come to a different conclusion than George has. Nor do I think that the University of Toronto Press would consider it a polemical work. There are some criticisms in the book but Penton is much fairer to JWs than many other writers (for example, he defends Russell on the divorce with Maria.) The book needs to be listed here and I think the previous placement was correct. Dtbrown 07:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A further thought. Witnesses have a different view about critisms expressed about them than most other religions. Most people would say they are hyper-sensitive to criticism. There is a difference between some criticism and a critique. Penton's work is not a critique. Most religions tolerate criticism even from members. Witnesses do not. The standard for the Wikipedia article should not reflect the hypersensitive view of Witnesses to criticism. Dtbrown 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am just trying to make a point. It should be obvious (even Josh admits the book is negative above) this is a criticism of JW's and not just an historical review. If this book is so important, then put it where it belongs - in the negative section. Why is that so hard to understand? I did not want to delete any of the negative sources already listed, but hiding an extra negative in the neutral section is not NPOV or honest. No matter what the flovor of his criticism, it is still criticism, and not positive criticism. You would think so if he wrote the same things about your religion or absence of it.
Comparing a group of organizations to Nazism or Sovietism is the same as comparing each group individually. For instance take this hypothetical comment: Certain internet groups such as myspace, wikipedia... display the same attitudes of cults, a high degree of commitment, isolationsim such as sitting at their computers for hours on end... while the statement is rediculous Don't you feel that I just called everyone on WP a memeber of a cult? Be honest. George 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said this book was negative. I said "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics Under Persecution" was negative. I don't really know what your argument is here. He clearly did not compare the JWs to Nazis in any significant or negative way, merely that both groups had claims to 'prophetic authority'. And the comparison wasn't even with JWs specifically, it was with "religious movements" contrasted with secular movements, of which the Nazi government was one example. I don't know how this could possibly be "negative".
I think a reorganization of content would be most appropriate. I tried before but Central thwarted that. He's gone, so personally, I'd like to do away with the somewhat silly distinction of books being negative and positive. We should merely list the best examples and source books, and leave it the reader to decide.
I think at the time, Central accused me of whitewashing JW history, or supporting the JWs in someway. It seems, I just can't win. :) joshbuddytalk 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the re-organization into one list of resources is a great idea. Dtbrown 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DittoGeorge 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me dtbrown. Thanks George for your support on this. :) joshbuddytalk 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, however, I don't feel the link to Carl Olof Jonsohn's book is appropriate for this article as the work only really addresses the issue of 607/1914, an issue that is not mentioned anywhere in this wiki. Just a thought. Duffer 09:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But, the year 1914 is mentioned several times and it is foundational to Witness' teachings. Jonsson's work is a critique of the foundation of the 1914 teaching and the concept of a 2,520 year period. So, I think it belongs.Dtbrown 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is a major deal in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses' faith, however, it still is only one specific, controversial, issue. I didn't really want to expand the resources section with another link, but I think it's only fair to have both sides of this issue represented. Duffer 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the book, while very valuable is better left on an article that deals with it more narrowly. The scope of the book is too narrow for the subject at hand. I think the Escatology and Controveries articles are natural choices, and perhaps the history article as well. joshbuddy, talk 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I wanted the link gone completely. I think it would be far more appropriate in the resources section of a Wiki article that touches on this controversy. Duffer 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Those Accepted into Heaven

Isn't there something in the theology of Jehovah's witnesses that states a set number of people can get into heaven. Like 144,000 was it? Shouldn't we include that as it is one of the most theologically distinct features of the faith?

Good point! Feel free to include it. joshbuddy, talk 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
JW's understanding of Revalation 7:4-8 ("And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel...;") and Revelation 7:9 ("After these things I saw and, look! a great crowd, which no man could number, out of all the nationas and tribes and peoples and tongues,...") is a literal and harmonious understanding with Revelation 20:4 ("And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them...And they came to life and ruled as kings with Christ for a thousand years." and Revelation 20:6 (which essentially restates this princely role for those who are part of the first ressurection of Revelation 20:5-6) as well as Revelation 20:12-13 (the openning of the scrolls of life and the release from death through resurrection) with the Bible's stated purpose for Earth (Revelation 21:1) that started in Genesis. We believe there's a reason for 2 resurrections and the "creation (Rev 21:1)" of a new Heaven and a new Earth - that there are different purposes for each group within these resurrections and that while all have hope of a paradise, some have that as a Heavenly hope and others as an Earthly hope. Maybe this clarifies it some.

External Links

There has been much talk about external links and what is an appropriate link. At [3] we find the following 4 points. 1)Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? 2)Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site 3)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. 4)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material. In light of that, are sites such as Freeminds apporiate links either in the article or at the bottom page? Ideas and thoughts please. The following is from freeminds homepage, "This is a religion of specific psychiatric tastes. It requires a peculiar sort of neurotic scheme in the personality of those who will become a part of it and a defender of its insanity in the face of constant reproofs of its genuine claims to supernatural authenticity." "psychiatric, neurotic, insanity" seems to be distasteful and perhaps hateful. Emphasis added Johanneum 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this directive from the "External Links" guide you cited above gives us the answer: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Freeminds.org is perhaps the most prominent critical resource on Jehovah's Witnesses on the internet. Due to this status it deserves to be listed here. It should not be given undue weight, however. Dtbrown 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this website/group solicit the professional opinion or commentary of experts on psychological/psychiatric issues inferred by such inflammatory statements? Perhaps information from freeminds regarding this type of information would be better sourced directly from such experts if they indeed corroborate or acknowledge the substance of this assessment, removing the notion of bias. - CobaltBlueTony 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify. I'm not supporting the statements cited. This is, however, a "prominent site" relating to the subject at hand. We should trust the users to judge its merits. Dtbrown 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A google search reveals that Freeminds doesn't even show up on the first two pages (except for the pay ads). These [4][5] critical websites do and are outside the xjw links which dominate the referneces in these articles. The majority of criticism which exists about JW's is not from xjw's.George 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point George! Freeminds certainty is not the "official" web page about JW's and it is far from "neutral" too. It just is hard for me to see words such as: "psychiatric, neurotic, insanity" and then use it as a link that should (according to policy): "contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." Johanneum 03:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And how does a google search identify what site is a "prominent site" or not? I missed where Wikipedia says that only neutral or positive sites can be mentioned. Dtbrown 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


"Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?" and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." Taken from:Wikipedia:External links Johanneum 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Johanneum, there is not just one point of view regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. So, we are not restricted to neutral links. So, this from the same page you cited would apply: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)" I can understand how you may be offended by the description given (which is just a small part of the site), but it is one critical opinion. The rest of the site gives a rather comprehensive critical evaluation which deserves to be noted for our users. Aside from the citation which you've given are there other problems you have with the site? Dtbrown 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and do not have a problem with other views, I do see a problem with links that have improper and not tasteful information. As for the rest of the site, to me it is like saying(during WW II) besides Hitler what problem do you have with joining the Nazi party? I know that can be an extreme example but if th Home page smells like poop why would I want to see if it tastes like it too? But that is just me, I was just throwing it out for other ideas.  :-) Johanneum 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the Hitler or Nazi party comparison is apt. If there's a serious suggestion of removing the link I think the entire site would need review. We should not remove a link just based on a cursory glance at the home page. Dtbrown 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a critical site that you feel is better written and more prominent? joshbuddy, talk 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I offered: [6][7]. There are many well researched criticisms and nuetral essays on JW's. The xjw websites are full of the nastiness Jo has been bringing up. There are many better sites as well such as religioustolerance.org; beliefnet; about.com; adherents.com. One essay I ahve found to be well prepared and not designed to be a polemic against JW's is by Joel Elliot.[8]

Also, one thing I have found is that all the neutral websites give little or no attention to xjw hate sites. We could take a lesson from them, but will this comment be heard? We'll see. George 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The CARM site links to freeminds.org as one of two links it offers. The other link it offers is to the Witness Inc. site. I have no doubt I could write the people at the other sites you've suggested for their evaluation of freeminds.org and I'd get a positive reply. The xjw sites are not "hate sites" as you claim. When Duffer suggested channging a pro=JW site I gave reasons objecting to it but in the final analysis said that I would defer to the consensus of the JW editors on that since a pro-JW site was in question. I think a similar courtesy should be showed. Dtbrown 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I said the neutral sites mostly ignore xjw sites, and CARM is not neutral. however Carm isthe most highly ranked website that is anti JW and if it referneces 'freeminds' then that might be good enough. We have statements in these articles that JW's have been opposed by governments and religions but nearly all the criticism mentioned is from XJW's and much of their criticism has been ignored or even refuted by the neutral webistes I mentioned earlier. Please diffenentiate the two groups. George 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what you mean by showing courtesy. I have not edited anything, I have merely joined in a discussion and brought forth my views and research. You cannot say that somethng will happen if you write these groups. I suppose you would need to actually do it.George 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I probably should apologize for my remark. You were right to express your views. However, I don't think there are any really "neutral" sites regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Some may be less critical or positive than others but I don't think any are really neutral. I know from personal experience that freeminds.org is one of the most "prominent" critical sites and I've not read any criticisms of the site except from Witnesses. Dtbrown 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please check these resources I view as neutral. I think a lesson can be taken from these as to language in the articles.[9][10][11]George 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the first one is positive. The second one is negative. The third is harder to catergorize. Dtbrown 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to peer review request

Given the extreme debate that has obviously occurred over the content of this page, I will resist the temptation to make the following changes unannounced:

1. “The entire (Protestant) Bible is considered by Jehovah's Witnesses to be the inerrant word of God.” -It would probably be more correct to say that the canon is considered to be inspired, but that the New World Translation of this canon is more often used.

Argumentative, unneccesary.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It gives the reader the wrong impression. Saying that they consider the Protestant Bible to be the inerrant word of God is inaccurate; otherwise they would not have their own translation of it. BenC7 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There arer many groups and individuals who have produced translations of the Bible. Is this true of them all? JW's used the research of previous scholars as the basis for all os their renderrings in the NWT, read It's apendices and forward. They also generously quote from other translations in their publications. Since you are new to WP you may not fully understand what NPOV really is. What you are attempting to do is POV. George 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I will concede that mentioning that the NWT may be unnecessary in the lead. I am trying to think, "What impression will this give a reader who knows nothing about the topic?". I made statement (1) because I felt (and still do) that it gave readers the wrong impression, since most Protestant bible translations conflict clearly with JW doctrine. BenC7 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
JW's used protestant Bibles until the NWT was produced and did a good job of convincing people of their doctrines up to that point. I mentioned earlier the renderings in the NWT are supported by scholars previously, they simply had not all been placed in a single translation together before the NWT. Just because Bible versions are more popular does not make them more correct. JW's respect the Bible and this is clear form their writings and research I own about twenty different bibles. I consult them all, and am encouraged to do so. George 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a brief parenthetical remark could be added at the end of that sentence such as: "(with some deviations from the traditional renderings of certain scriptures in the New World Translation)"--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that a statment like: unless otherwise noted all scriptural quotations in these artciles are taken from the NWT of the holy scriptures (linked)George 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying that is not necessary in the lead; it is just easier to put the translation used before or following the quote, until it is decided what the convention is going to be.
With regards to the original point I made, I still recommend placing the word "canon" after "Protestant Bible". The reason is obviously that JWs are not Protestant, and yet the reader is left with this impression upon reading the lead. It would clarify things further to add a sentence that says something like, "Most JWs believe that the NWT more accurately reflects their beliefs, however this translation is not considered valid by most Protestants." (I'm sure I could find a reference for this if need be.) The objective is to give the reader a clear understanding, not to lead them to believe that JWs and Protestants are almost the same. BenC7 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How about leaving out the word Protestant, and instead indicate "that they accept the entire Bible, excluding the Apocrypha".--Jeffro77 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that that is really any different to how it reads at the moment. I want to avoid giving the reader the impression that JWs and others who believe the Bible are in the same boat. Look, for example, at the Shi'a Islam article. It makes it clear in the first sentence or two the way in which Shi'ite Muslims differ from Sunni Muslims. The point is not to say "right" and "wrong", but to make the distinction clear. BenC7 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To summarize and clarify, to avoid the reader making an incorrect assumption that Jehovah's Witnesses are similar to Protestants, and to indicate that the NWT contains different translations of certain scriptures, the article could state: "Jehovah's Witnesses accept the entire Bible excluding the Apocrypha, with some deviations from the traditional renderings of certain scriptures in the New World Translation."--Jeffro77 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think we are going to agree on this point. I'm not sure that what you've written makes sense. It could be interpreted to mean that the NWT is the 'traditional renderings' you mentioned. I think I'll stand by my suggestion above (in italics) - but I've put my two cents' worth in. BenC7 10:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What was written above on the Talk page was a quick composite of the thoughts involved. See the actual edit in the article.--Jeffro77 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry. Yes, the actual edit is clear. Thanks for that. BTW, does "anglicized" mean "English"? That would make it more understandable for your average person, if that is what it means. BenC7 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
'anglicize' means to make something English in appearance, just as 'hellenize' means to make something Greek in appearance. I would have thought that most English speakers would know the word but maybe not. Perhaps a wikilink to the article on anglicization would be appropriate if it is considered to be a unusual term.--Jeffro77 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. BenC7 01:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

2. The phrase “extinction of the soul” needs to be explained.

Explained in other articles in this series.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is so, there should be a wikilink to the relevant section. BenC7 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Would "the soul not surviving death" be simple enough?--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, or even something like "The soul ceasing to exist upon a person's death". BenC7 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but the sentence is already a bit wordy.--Jeffro77 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind which words are used, as long as it is understandable standing alone, or there is a wikilink to the relevant section. BenC7 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

3. “Their stand on refusing blood transfusions has … gained mutual respect and backing from the medical field.” -The reference given here is not scientific in nature. An appropriate reference should be found, or the sentence removed.

A reference form JW's is perfectly acceptable provided it actually has the information listed.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is like saying that "According to Ford, Ford makes good cars." It is biased (i.e., not NPOV). If medical opinion is going to be expressed, a medical source should be used. BenC7 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If Ford produced a booklet full of commentary from engineers who did not get paid by Ford, and those engineers said good things about Ford's products.... I hope you get the point now.George 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is biased nonetheless. It gives the reader the impression that the entire medical field is in favour of the idea of bloodless operations. This is clearly not the case:

Obviously doctors and surgeons cannot openly say "This is stupid", etc.. It can be seen from the above, however (and I'm sure I could find more if I kept looking), that the medical field, while it repsects the decision to refuse blood products, does not favour it. BenC7 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Some medical sources agree with them, but many don't. There certainly isn't "mutual respect and backing from the medical field" as a whole.--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. But who are the some and who are the many? First see this.[12] Doctors at the top of various surgical and medical fields have been quietly switching to bloodless techniques. The benefits are obvious as you read the articles listed by the sources I have given you. Actually watch the presentation JW's have produced and you will hear the manager of the largest bloodbank in NY as well as many prominent surgeons stating the need for bloodless surgery, and the fact that JW's are the reason they have developed the techniques to perform it. Thus it is true they have garnered respect from the medical community. George 13:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that you are confusing the availability of bloodless surgery with medical opinion that it is universally the favourable option. If you browse through a few of the Google links you have provided, you can see that they state that they offer it not because they view it as a universally favourable option, but because of the right of choice of the patient. Bloodless surgery has benefits in some cases, but not (by any stretch of the imagination) in all situations, such as where a person has suffered severe blood loss and needs a transfusion to live. It is hard to imagine that doctors would stand around in this situation and say "Bloodless surgery is the only way" and let the person die.
Also don't confuse the word "mutual respect" in the sense that is used in the article ('to think highly of') with the word in its more common usage ('show consideration for'). The article also contains the word "backing" which is the more serious point, and still yet to be demonstrated. BenC7 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't actually 'gain mutual respect' from a thing. Mutual suggests a two-way relationship between two parties. The sentence - rather awkwardly - suggests that each group has respect for the other, which isn't the point that is trying to be made, since obviously Witnesses as an organization do not respect the medical field's use of blood.--Jeffro77 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Under “History 1916-1942” , the sentences beginning with “Members had the opportunity…” is clearly POV and should be removed.

Please explain your statement.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In a similar vein to the above, saying "Their courage won them the respect of many contemporaries" is opinion. It is also not in the formal tone of an encyclopaedia article. BenC7 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow the links provided. Look up any hisoriian. You will find these statements to be factual. Since the statements you have a problem with are confirmed fact, you will have a hard time convincing anyone who has a NPOV of your position.George 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As you will see, the sentence I cited does not contain any links. BenC7 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
George, this complaint wasn't about whether the comments were factual, it was about non-encyclopedic phraseology.--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

5. The last two sentences of “History 1976-Present” not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article.

Please explain your ambiguous statement.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentences have since been removed. I think they may have been removed before your reading. They were news-like in their prose. BenC7 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I removed them. They were not specific to the historical development of the religion, they were simply statements relating to some members thereof.--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

6. “Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries and are the second or third largest religious group in many countries with a dominant religion.” -This seems 'highly spurious', especially without any scientific reference. Just browsing through the statistics on www.adherents.com gives one the impression that JWs are generally about tenth in size within ‘Christian’ groups alone. It should also be stated that JWs have a 'self-reported' membership of 6.6 million.

This rumour has been popular with Witnesses since a 1984 Awake (not Watchtower as suggested in my edit comment) indicated that Jehovah's Witnesses were the second largest religion in Italy (predominantly Catholic) and their Education brochure regarding Italy and Spain. This certainly doesn't constitute 'many countries', and the approx. 0.7% of Italian Witnesses is not particularly noteworthy.--Jeffro77 07:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

7. “The role of women is minimal in terms of responsibility, but they are a major part in the all important preaching work.” -"the all important preaching work" is not in the tone of an encyclopaedia entry.

(Since changed) Saying that women carry out a "large proportion of the preaching work" gives the reader the impression that they do the majority of the work. Is this accurate? If not, it would be better to say something like, "but they share equally with men in the preaching work" or whatever is the case. BenC7 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
According to The Watchtower 1 January 1991, page 23: "Our sisters are to be commended in that they are doing the greater part of the field work." Can't say whether it is still current though.--Jeffro77 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8. In the last paragraph of “Beliefs and Practices: Overview”, the translation used is not cited.

Please explain the importance of this statement.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. All other Engish translations do not include the word 'us'. Since it is different across the board, it is appropriate to cite the translation. Actually, it is just good practice to cite the translation used anyway. BenC7 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the idea is the same in every translation, I don't understand why that makes a difference. However, citing the translation is good form, direct external linking of verses is being debated by admins right now so I won't recommend that.George 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just linked "NWT" to the page on the NWT. 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

9. The section “Beliefs and Practices: Critical Views” is disjointed and assumes background knowledge on the part of the reader. It should be reworked or removed.

Yes this section is about the criticism of two people, not an overview of the criticism of JW's. That is a problem I have with this whole series.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As previously stated, the 'Critical Views' section is awkwardly placed in the article, with the initial implication when encountering the heading that it may be about critical views held by Witnesses. For this reason, and because there is limited content, I recommend indicating the individual critical views within the relevant sections of beliefs in the paragraphs above.--Jeffro77 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems appropriate. BenC7 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: 10. There seems to be some confusion about what consistutes a NPOV. Saying that the JWs 'are the restoration of the first century Christian congregation' is POV. NPOV is policy, not suggestion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for advancing one's POV. The previous edit of 'claims to be' has absolutely nothing wrong with it and does not need to be changed. BenC7 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since anyone can edit this type of thing happens fairly frequently. Just revert it if you notice.George 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses in world war II

The society did not succeed in its try to collaborate with the Nazis regime during World War II and the Nazis killed during the war 2000 Jehovah witnesses. The position in favor of the regime during those years is clearly explained in a Society formal letter to Hitler unanimously accepted by all Jehovah witnesses. This declaration is called “Declaration of Facts”.

citations:

The 1934 Yearbook of Jehova Witnesses beginning on page 130 said: "In June, the president of the Society visited Germany to take some action to get the Society's property restored to our possession and to carry on the work further. Knowing that the enemy has misrepresented the facts to the government, a Declaration of Facts was prepared, and on the 25th day of June, 1933, more than 7,000 of Jehovah's witnesses assembled at Berlin and unanimously adopted the resolution, millions of which were printed and distributed throughout Germany. That resolution is as follows, to wit: " " Declaration of Facts" ...

from page 134: "The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: 'The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.' We have no fight with any of these persons mentioned, but, as the witnesses for Jehovah and in obedience to his commandment set forth in the Scriptures, we are compelled to call attention to the truth concerning the same in order that the people may be enlightened concerning God and his purpose."...

from page 135: "The present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nation. Such is exactly our position; and we further state in our literature the reason for the existence of oppressive Big Business and the wrongful political religious influence... "

from page 136: "To know Jehovah God and his gracious provision for humankind is of most vital importance to all persons, because God has declared in His Word that where there is no vision or understanding of his Word the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) We have devoted our lives and our material substance to the work of enabling the people to gain a vision or understanding of God's Word, and therefore it is impossible for our literature and our work to be a menace to the peace and safety of the nation. Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart."

from page 137 ... "A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals held and promulgated by the present national government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications, and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness and who obey the Most High. Instead, therefore, of our literature and our work's being a menace to the principles of the present government we are the strongest supporters of such high ideals.”…

part of the society history

I would like to insert the above topic "jw in wwII", I dont want to change the good work of many before me so I would like that someone who well knows the structure of the article will do it. I think is something important and it is a part of history. please update the article

erroneous

based on the topic above about jw in wwII what is written about those subject: Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses In Nazi Germany (1933-1945)

is erroneous and must be correct. is written in wikipedia "Jehovah's Witnesses organized a convention in Berlin, Germany, on June 25, 1933. Some 7,000 persons assembled. The Witnesses publicly made their intentions clear: "Our organization is not political in any sense. We only insist on teaching the Word of Jehovah God to the people, and that without hindrance."[3]" this is not true this is not what is written in the text of that convention that every jw agreed with, the declaration clearly said the opposite and explained the society position in favur of the nazi regime.

please correct the article

Tetragrammaton

There should be a caption under the picture of the tetragrammaton (in "Overview"); it is just kind of hanging there. I tried to put one in but for some reason it didn't work (image too small?) BenC7 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(This has been fixed)

Multiple IP edits

A recent stint of identical edits by multiple IPs all work out to the same provider according to arin.net/whois: Illinois Century Network, which is a state-owned backbone:

"The Illinois Century Network (ICN) is a telecommunications backbone providing high speed access to data, video, and audio communication in schools and libraries, at colleges and universities, to public libraries and museums, and for local government and state agencies."

I will continue to revert, and would like others' assistance in doing so, so that I do not face a WP:3RR violation. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a couple of reverts now myself. Could others assist? Perhaps it's time to put up editing protection again for awhile? Dtbrown 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes little sense to put up editing protection while a peer review is occurring. I will revert if I see any obvious ones, but I am usually beaten to it. BenC7 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia allegations

Perhaps a starting point for research on this one could be this site: http://www.silentlambs.org/ Elp gr 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you could find a website that has documented cases instead of Bill Bowens' "personal experiences". Duffer 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there is little actual avidence of a problem within the Wt society or JW's, the only place this reference belongs is on the criticism page where it already is. George 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does this attitude remind me of all the cases where Catholic and Orthodox christian priests flatly accused whomever reported such incidents (only to end up having to resort to a shameful silence after the allegations were proven true)? Certainly, the burden of proof is with the one who makes the claim. But, since child abuse is a widespread crime, with religious figures often displaying a strong urge to use their authority in order to satisfy their sexual desires on the bodies of minors, going defensive and accusing the accusers and trying to play the role of the victim ("oh look, the bad guys are accusing all of us of pedophilia" - when the case is that somebody reports incidents, frequent or infrequent, where such crimes have been perpetrated and some community authorities, out of an ill-perceived sense of solidarity, "turned a blind eye"), instead of investigating the reported problem and solving it by handing the violators to the Police for whatever further action is necessary, does not give the best of impressions to an outsider. Elp gr 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Elp gr, while I appeciate that you feel strongly about the issue, you can surely appreciate how an encylopedic resource cannot echo claims of child abuse without some sort of substantial proof. While the source listed above is enough to indicate that there are allegations of child abuse by some, this sort of source is hardly definitive, much less inarguable. As such, barring further substantiation, kindly refrain from making changes along this avenue. Insofar as your post goes, certainly there have been issues within religious establishments regarding child abuse, but this hardly qualifies as proof or even justification for alleging some sort of cover-up in this case. --Vengeful Cynic 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  Elp gr, it is also important to realize that "even the Catholic Church" does not directly or tacitly endorse a method or system of protecting pedophile priests, and has even been making strides in extinguishing the culture of merely moving offending clerics instead of punishing them. The Witnesses have adopted a strict policy concerning child molestors who requalify for membership in their organization: they are to hold absolutely no position of authority or oversight in the congregations; some are even specifically banned from being in the company of children during religious or social activities without an appointed chaperone (sp?) present.
  Individuals like Bill Bowens (founder of Silent Lambs dot Org) overstepped the arrangements Witnesses have to address issues like this, and because their suggestions are not immediately adpoted, they put themselves at odds with those who would have otherwise heard their thoughts. This is unfortunate, because the Governing Body had been seeking a Scripturally sound answer for a while, and while the experiences of elders involved in such cases are helpful to them, uncooperative members, who put mroe stock in their own opinions than in effectively handling problems, hamper their efforts. It's a mistake to think that nothing is being done because it is not visible. Most of the hard, laborious and tedious work of elders and overseers is never recognized or heard of, but is being done nonetheless. The website http://www.jw-media.org has the official public statement(s) regarding the handling of child abuse. - CobaltBlueTony 18:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Article currently states (in regard to pedophiles not being permitted to serve in poosition of authority): "The general policy is not premised as punishment to the offender, but rather as a means of protecting the congregation's members." How is this a 'protection' if the general members are not aware of the reason for such members not making 'advancement' in the congregation?--Jeffro77 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Organization of JW pages

I am echoing this comment to both Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses and Talk:Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses

Let me preface this by saying that I am neither a JW nor a Wiki hotshot.

I recently added a section to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses. Looking at the Talk page there, I noted some discussion/disagreement about organization of the JW pages. That struck a chord with me, as I was having a problem finding my way around that particular maze also. In fact, starting from Jehovah's_Witnesses, I have been unable to find my way to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses.

Looking at Tambayan_Philippines, I noted a comment: "The History of the Philippines article is 80KB and it should be split into smaller articles, with the main article trimmed down to about 32KB and only giving the important details. For example, see how History of the United States gives an overview, and how it has eleven subarticles that go into detail about specific periods. [...]".

I looked at the History of the United States page, and the organization there struck me as well done and easy to follow. FWIW, I suggest implementing a similar sort of organization for the JW pages. -- Boracay Bill

Whatever makes things clearer and easier for people to use. BenC7 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation from Time magazine

George,

Does my last edit take into account your objection? The TIME article does say:

"For one thing, their interpretation of Biblical chronology reveals that Adam and Eve were created in the autumn of 4026 BC or 5,994 years ago. Linking 6,000 years to the six days of God's creation, they believe it fitting that there be a sabbath-like rest thereafter, beginning in 1975--though Witnesses cautiously avoid a flat prediction linked to that year."

So, the article is discussing what the Witnesses' publications were discussing at that time. Dtbrown 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your objection to the Time magazine article George. Is it not a fair representation of what the JWs believed at the time? Do you believe that the article is biased? joshbuddy, talk 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The first red flag I saw was the name danny haszard in the address. If any editor here feels he is a reliable source for anything I feel sorry for that person. Then I read the article. I don't see any reason why an article that does not quote any JW publications should be used to reference a statement which says that JW pubs said something. Basic common sense. Also, WHy is the reference even necessary? There is a reference to a JW artcle immediately preceeding the disputed one? Multiple references are rarely necessary. Why would they be in this case? Why do you feel two refs are needed? IF two are neede why not two refs from JW publications? Finally, IF you want to present the view of journalists at the time then say that and add your ref. George 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how who hosts the scan of the article reflects on the content of the article itself. Its a very valuable and interesting article because it represents an external POV on the Witnesses. It should absolutely be included in the article (if it can be made to be useful in someway) Are you claiming that Time didn't research their article well? I can't really see how more references hurt us, especially a reference of such value. Its unique in that we don't have a lot of external POV's on JWs within the article. joshbuddy, talk 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just another note, they are reporting on the assembly, aren't they? joshbuddy, talk 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the quote in that article, "...though Witnesses cautiously avoid a flat prediction linked to that year." - CobaltBlueTony 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I am outvoted George 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. :) I still am curious about your objections. joshbuddy, talk 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't voting either; just commenting on the article should it remain/be included. - CobaltBlueTony 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy and opposition" section

This section is in need of some real love. It needs to summarize the points contained in the articles that are supposedly its main articles. I know some of these sub-articles aren't very clean, but we should still make an effort to clean it all up, and try and bring this section in line with the guidelines. Though, don't let that prevent you from fixing those sub-articles. joshbuddy, talk 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page is undergoing extensive revision. Might be better to wait a while for that aspect of it. BenC7 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary disassociation--where to put info?

I can agree with joshbuddy that this info probably does not belong in the lead:

"Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided."--"Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions" from Official Website: http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm accessed August 2, 2006

but I feel it needs to be noted somewhere. Suggestions? Dtbrown 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I tried combining it with some other info and placed it under "Congregational Discipline." If that's not okay we can try something else. Dtbrown 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

why was my section on Jehovah's Witnesses not being allowed to question their religion or do honest research on their religion on the internet or elsewhere removed? - User:Classified1

Aside from the that such a statement is verifiably untrue? - CobaltBlueTony 20:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiably untrue? Ok, I will verify it and post what I can find from the Jehovah's Witness writings. Although, if you are really a Jehovah's Witness, I'm certain you know what I'm talking about, but won't admit it, or are in denial. I am a Jehovah's Witness and I hear "beware of the internet" all the time. By the way, what are you doing out here, exposing yourself to such great dangers, cobaltbluetony?

Might I suggest self-examination, instead of finger-pointing? If you were really my brother and really concerned about me, you would not be approaching me openly in this forum. This is an academic resource, and it is my intention to preserve the accuracy of these article until it becomes ill-advised. - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is your intention to preserve accuracy or to protect the reputation of an organization to which you belong? The views contained here are quite biased, in my opinion. And I'm not your brother, I'm your sister ;) -classified1

Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses can't openly question what's written in the Watchtower. Expressing doubts will get you in trouble. Haven't you ever wondered why? If it was "the truth" why would they be concerned what people will find out about it? Why is our research restricted to only what the governing body tells us? That's not research, that's indoctrination. And it is a sign of something to hide. -User:Classified1

Independent corroboration of what we believe is available in secular sources. Your technical status within the congregation notwithstanding, your true affiliations seem contradictory to your claims. - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or should you say... "select" sources. I am surprised how onesided this article is. What a shame. -classified1

To the contrary, I am denying it because it is not true. Witnesses often have in their libraries (in the branches, congregations, and personal libraries) material which may speak unfavorably of Witnesses and/or their beliefs, including material which may be considered apostate in context. It is not the research which separates a person from the congregations; it's what they do with what they read that propels them towards an unfavorable status... or not. Certainly, though, the average Witness is not encouraged to do so. Would you need to read every presentation of Nazism and neo-Nazism to gain an understanding of the subject? Certainly, an individual uses his or her own standards, loyalties, conscience and concerns to determine which material they are willing to read, to what extent, and how they intend to perceive the soruce(s) of such information. - CobaltBlueTony 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, cobaltbluetony, if I had a copy of Crisis of Conscience, should I ask my elders to put it in the congregation library? They would do so? LOL at that idea. "Not encouraged" -now that's putting it softly. I understand that what goes on and how people get in trouble is not verifiable information, so I will find something from them in writing to back up what I am saying, in keeping with the spirit of this idea of an online community supported "encyclopedia" over which you have for some reason been given a measure of control.-classified1

You are mistaken. This article exists because of consensual agreements by Witness and non-Witness editors alike. Extremists (from both sides) are not permitted to color the articles too much in any one direction. In fact, if no editor from any camp of opinion likes it, then it's probably the best chance we have of reaching Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy. And I highly doubt you could add anything that hasn't already been included by much more hostile and dedicatedly vehement forces than you. Alot of it was rejected by non-Witness editors. Witness editors have to follow the rules here just like anyone else. - CobaltBlueTony 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

References problems?

Does anyone else have problems reading the references after #35? Mine seems all garbled. Dtbrown 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, same. Might want to report it to an admin. BenC7 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I got it fixed. I don't know if what I removed is anything important. If so, perhaps it can be re-inserted, if necessary. Dtbrown 08:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the name Jehovah

"They regard the use of the name "Jehovah" to be critical to acceptable worship." This is incorrect. They simply consider the use of the name appropriate as their bible indicates that it is the name of god. They refer to god as "God" fairly often but tend to use the name Jehovah more often simply because they agree that it is proper to refer to one by their name. They refer to a god named Jehovah as "Jehovah" just as most people refer to a man named Bob as "Bob". Most of them don't take it all that seriously and it certainly isn't "critical to acceptable worship". -- 71.139.246.241 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 6 August 2006

I basically agree, but I'll try to be a bit more specific than the above user. The assertion in question is false. It is not necessarily the specific name "Jehovah" that is critical. It is the recognition that God has a proper name, and that it must be used out of deep respect, regardless of how the name might be rendered in different languages ("Jeova" in Portuguese; "Jehovových" in Czech; "Geova" in Italian, etc..). Duffer 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually it is important to use His proper name because both Bible and secular works speak of many beings and items which have been considered god, god-like or godhead. As a JW myself, it is known to be of importance to know to whom we are praying. That said it is also important to have good manners; thus we are unlikely to provoke deliberate conflict by injecting Jehovah's name willy-nilly for the sake of usage. Wiki researchers might want to drop by a Kingdom Hall any weekend - you can get all of the basic materials and either quote them directly or get a better feel for what the doctrine is. And, no, the is not a proselytizing attempt veiled as research; it's just easier to have primary materials for a work of this magnitutde.

New paragraph on blood

I think this needs a bit of cleanup on a couple of fronts.

Statements made in the paragraph don't appear to be entirely supported by the references given. An unacceptable number of the references come from JW literature to support medical conclusions. I'm not really comfortable with that. I would prefer somewhat more objective references when it comes to medicine itself. Additionally, the references are not done using the cite templates, and they really should. joshbuddy, talk 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements made in the paragraph don't appear to be entirely supported by the references given.
  • Can you break that down a little more?
An unacceptable number of the references come from JW literature to support medical conclusions. ... I would prefer somewhat more objective references when it comes to medicine itself.
  • If you think they might be misquoted, then a hunt for the original sources used might be in order. Also, note that the quotes cited by Witnesses are there to suggest there is legitimate medical benefits, but not to arbitrarily go on a "blood is bad medicine" campaign. As has been noted before, the blood position is based on religious, not medical, concerns.
CobaltBlueTony 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses = unreliable is an opinion and not a good enough reason to deny them as a source. Per Tony's suggestion, if you have a problem with the source then look up the originals and see if the information is untrue. George 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall saying that the sources were unreliable. I've sourced many Watchtower articles for inclusion into this article. (In fact, most of them are from me) I think most JWs will agree that the Watchtower and the Awake are not medical authorities, and I'd rather see actual medical resources used. No particular urgency to this, just bringing it up. There are certainly many quotes in Watchtower literature that suggest that blood is bad. Certainly those references are useful to establish that the official view is that blood is bad medicine. joshbuddy, talk 01:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I try to make it a habit to check all references given by others. If you follow the links and see what is used as reference you will not have any reason to challenge the references given. Ben recently admitted to not checking references before asserting his opinion on them. I hope that is not the case with you.George 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure if you read what I actually said, I stated that I was commenting on the content itself rather than the references. I never stated that I was asserting my opinion on the efficacy of the references. Please choose your words a little more carefully. BenC7 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
But that is my problem. You work solely on the content of the paragraph (which you have personal and religious issues with) and not the references? How can you know what is factual and what is not? At least Josh has the courtesy to do so and then give actual constructive criticism. Your comments are blind if you don't check the facts.George 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you break that down a little more?
Sure
  • 74, "a growing number of doctors" it doesn't really say how many doctors are advocating or not advocating this, rather, a growth in medical centers practicing this.
It is also not a sentence. You can't reference a phrase that doesn't actually say anything. "A growing number of doctors" what? Enjoy perms? Eat carrots? BenC7 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 75, I would rather the original source be cited here.
  • 78, 79, I can't see anything in their respective links to indicate the doctors in these videos are leaders in their respective fields.

George m, though I understand you are suggesting I double check the references, I don't think there is any particular need to imply I'm not actually doing so. I prefer civility where possible. I think i've shown over some length of time that I'm pretty fair to both positions, that of JWs and ex-JWs. I'm always up for some constructive criticism though, and if I have been unfair, please let me know. :) joshbuddy, talk 02:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I reworded in an attempt to satisfy the legitimate issues raised. Apologies for remarks that were unkind. I inferred from your comments that you had not checked the references,at least not thoroughly. George 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also have checked the references for the section and agree that they do not support the statements given. For "doctors praising JWs" for example (#75), there is no statement at all in the referenced article that praises JWs. Also, #76/77 do not say anything about the JWs contribution to the improvement of medical techniques. The techniques are often said to develop in response to the need for bloodless surgery for JWs, not because JWs have contributed (ie., in a medical or research sense) to their development. Finally, the sentence "JWs and surgeons have collaborated to produce information on the benefits of bloodless surgery" is irrelevant to the article. The article is about JWs, not about bloodless surgery techniques. Who cares if they have worked together to "provide information"? BenC7 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my comments that were harsh. Thank you for your constructive criticism. The section is about JW's & blood, therefore whatever JW's are doing with regard to blood is notable. The topic does merit inclusion especially since so much criticism about this very topic is included in this series of articles. I suggest an article on Hospital Liason Committees would be an improtant inclusion in thisserieis. I have attempted to address the concerrns I felt were legitiamte. The comment you claim is irrelevant is relvant. You don't care if they have worked together but it is information which belongs in the public domain, just like the criticisms you so avidly pursue. George 14:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant in the sense that it is unencyclopaedic. The fact that parties X and Y have collaborated to "provide information" is not notable. Any party representing any point of view about any topic will likely work to "provide information" about a given topic. You may as well include something like "JWs hold very stongly to their opinions regarding X." It doesn't really address the point and just fills the page with words that don't help the reader to come to any sort of better informed stance about the topic. BenC7 01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you came to this conclusion. Let's see some other opinions.George 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Weigh in

Is the new paragraph on blood notable enough for inclusion? George 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote thus: The first half, about the development of bloodless surgery techniques, belongs more in the JWs and blood article. The second half, about collaboration to provide information, is not notable. BenC7 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there some merit to the ideas involved but it needs more work, IMO. The way the paragraph stands now it could give the impression that the medical community is siding with Jehovah's Witnesses on the question of blood. Generally speaking, the medical community is more accomodating of Witnesses than 30 or 40 years ago. My personal physician in Phoenix, AZ many years ago was the doctor most Witnesses went to because he'd accomodate them on blood. He was even quoted in Awake! because of his efforts. I asked him soon after during an appointment I had with him if he thought using blood under appropriate circumstances was bad medicine. He was startled by my question. He explained he was just trying to help the Witnesses but that if a patient of his wanted blood and it was the appropriate treatment he would order it and that sometimes blood was the only treatment that would prevent death. Perhaps adding words like: "To accomodate Witness patients..." would help clarify things. I'd like to see a few more edits before I'd vote on this one. Dtbrown

Don't forget that voting is evil. :) joshbuddy, talk 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A section has been added to the blood that is out of place, and badly worded. Its tone isn't appropriate, but the intent may be valid, but probably should be under the controversy section instead. Any thoughts?--Jeffro77 05:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism

The main article states that Jehovah's Witnesses are not strictly pacifists. This statement confuses me a little since from my understanding a pacifist is someone who does not preach nor practice violence even in self-defence. Do the Jehovah's Witnesses fit this definition or am I missing something? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.23.129 (talk • contribs) 05:21, August 21, 2006

JWs are conscientious objectors regarding the political conflicts of this world. They "... love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world’s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God’s war that will finally enforce his will on earth—a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all.—Jeremiah 25:31-33; Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10" - (Awake! - g97 5/8 p. 23) Should Christians Be Pacifists? - --DannyMuse 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, they do not conform to the definition of pacifism, largely because of the "preach" aspect. As DannyMuse stated above, in his claim that they are pacifists (since edited by DannyMuse), "they welcome God's war". They are specifically - and eagerly - awaiting a slaughter of most of the population of the planet, which precludes them from identification as 'pacifisits'.--Jeffro77 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Eagerly how? Right, the misery this world is in will be done away with. It is not the destruction of people, Jeff, that JW's look forward to, and that is where your viewpoint is in error. God also is looking forward to this event. George 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeffro77 is mistaken. I did NOT claim that JWs are pacifists. My comment clearly says "strictly speaking, they [JWs] are not pacifists." I'm not sure how he could have misunderstood that. In fact, my Edit Summary was "JWs are Conscientious Objectors not Pacifists". --DannyMuse 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was not mistaken. {unknown author} asked "Do the Jehovah's Witnesses fit this definition [that "a pacifist is someone who does not preach nor practice violence even in self-defence"]", to which DannyMuse replied, "Yes...". And it was that response that is inaccurate, as the Witnesses specifically preach that a violent destruction of almost all people is required, and they look forward to that event as the solution to the world's problems. Are you telling me, George, that you have never known any Witnesses who have thought about what material things they could have when all of those pesky 'worldly people' die and leave all their stuff behind? And do you really imagine that a loving Creator would be so bound by ego that he looks foward to slaughtering people just to prove his own status? Out of all the conceivable ways of making the world a better place, it is indeed a concept deeply rooted in human tradition that the only way an all powerful deity can achieve peace is by killing off anyone who disagrees.--Jeffro77 08:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have heard witnesses say such things and these have been routinely counseled on such an attitude. God destroyed possibly millions in Noah's day, thousands in Sodom and Gommora, not for an ego trip but because He knows we cannot rule ourselves. Here is an excerpt from the Bible teach book Chapter 11 pp. 110-111 pars. 12-13 Why Does God Allow Suffering:
"12 Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem.
13 Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance."
Have you found humans to be effective and honest rulers Jeff? Also, read everything Danny wrote, not just the first word. He did reply kind of strangely but you mistook his opening for an affrimative answer to the question when that was not the case.George 13:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I mistook nothing. I recognized Danny's comments for what they were: An affirmation followed by a statement that contradicted that affirmation. My comments were directed toward his initial affirmation. Thanks for the allegorical speculations from the 'Bible Teach' book... that's right, the teacher in the illustration should smite the other rebellious students, causing not only him but also his descendants extraordinary suffering and killing them if they don't agree with him, while letting the original rebel get away with wrongdoing for a prolonged period... and all to show that his way is 'better'. It is indeed a very human story, full of the same mistrust among deities as found in other ancient myths. Though humans are indeed imperfect, the claim that no human ruler has ever been either effective, or honest, is a little shortsighted.--Jeffro77 08:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Once and for all, my comments clearly say "strictly speaking, they [JWs] are not pacifists." Everything else is pointless obfuscation. --DannyMuse 02:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

JW & Freemasonry proof

http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/wtm.pdf - for when someone take my link outta the main page. masonic bastards!!

Indymedia and anti-Masonry. What a delightful combination of unreliable sources and idiotic tinfoil-hat-craziness. Unigolyn 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sections

The article needs to be condensed and edited quite a bit. The whole section on Jesus' cross is overlong, rambling, and throughly unsuited for an encyclopedia article. Unigolyn 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the one sentence on the cross? BenC7 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh. You were referring to a previous edit. Apologies. BenC7 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Unnecessary Detail in Lead

This paragraph keeps on getting reverted to the lead:

Jehovah's Witnesses have been mainly focused with the presence of Jesus Christ in the year 1914, as is taught by their doctrine and publications. The initial date was thought to have been 1876 but with New Light and understanding, their belief is that Jehovah God has allowed the Faithful and Discreet Slave to better understand that the date should have been 1914. According to the Book - 'Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry', Jesus is taught to have arrived in 1914 to claim His rightful place alongside God in establishing His Heavenly Kingdom. This theme is a main doctrine in their teachings and is found in almost all of their publications.

Firstly, it is inaccurate. 1876 was never taught to be the beginning of the Second Coming. That was 1874. Secondly, it is full of Witness jargon. "New Light and understanding," and "Faithful and Discreet Slave" do not communicate to the general public. Thirdly, this is the lead to the article. Such detail may fit better in the body of the article but I do not think it belongs in the lead. Dtbrown 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. It has been quite annoying. BenC7 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial information

Establishing of jargon is public knowledge as this is how they preach door to door, so I disagree about the jargon. The dates are referenced in the Watchtower magazines. Also, the terms "New Light and understanding" and "Faithful and Discreet Slave" are or will be linked so those are fine. And since it is such a main doctrinal theme for their teachings, it deserves a place in the introduction and is also further explained in the body of the article. Also, their belief is not in the second coming as their translation of the word 'parousia' is presence so that was incorrect.

Protector of the Truth 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look through WP:MOS. I know its a lot of reading, but it would potentially make things much easier for you in terms of editing. There are some guidelines for the WP:LEDE which are very helpful. joshbuddy, talk 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

'Disallowing' vs 'not accepting' Blood

It is more accurate to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'disallowed' blood transfusions by the doctrine imposed by their leadership, rather than that they 'do not accept' blood transfusions specifically as a personal decision, contrary to the change made by DannyMuse. Whereas individual JWs are allowed to make a personal decision regarding certain blood fractions and procedures, (though the Watchtower Society stipulates which are a 'conscience matter'), transfusions of whole blood are specifically disallowed by the leadership.--Jeffro77 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point, Jeffro, it seems that you are forgetting or perhaps ignoring the fact that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a voluntary decision that each individual makes. As you correctly observed, "individual JWs are allowed to make a personal decision regarding certain blood fractions ..." In fact, everything about being one of JWs is voluntary. No one is forced to do anything which they do no want to do. People become one of JWs voluntarily and sometimes they leave voluntarily. As with all things in life, there are of course implications for any and all serious decisions, both benefits and consequences.
Not true. JWs receive emotional coercion to go 'Witnessing' (or to go more), as well as to meetings, and other aspects of JW life. Some stay in the organization only because they have no friends or family outside, despite learning that certain doctrines they were taught are erroneous. The fact that JWs are allowed to accept only some fractions indicates that they are forced to reject others.--Jeffro77 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's one person's point of view, and perhaps that is how it seems to you. But obviously, there are many people that actually enjoy being Jehovah's Witnesses. We disagree. --DannyMuse 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that all blood decisions (and there are many) are "overseen" by some Governing group at the point of decision. This is not generally true, particularly with the advent of new drug generation techniques wherein the source material (possibly whole-blood based) for a treatment may be more difficult to determine. I'll address the actual abstaining more below.
Additionally, JWs believe that it is a prohibition from God to abstain from blood. The "leadership" to which you refer maintains this belief as do all of JWs. See Acts 15:29, Leviticus 7:26, Deuteronomy 12:23
The scriptures you cite are in regard to blood as food, and have no medical context. If "all of JWs" believed the prohibition on blood, there would be no need for the leadership to tell them what they are and are not allowed to accept.--Jeffro77 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue with ingesting blood came about when doctors and scientists began to document the association between IV fluid compounds and feeding. It's common now to realize that an IV can be considered a form of eating for a sick individual but this was not always well understood by a general population that once had limited contact with hospitals except for extraordinary measures that often ended in death. Then JWs ran smack into a conscience question: If I can eat through a hose stuck in my arm and the hose is full of blood, then am I eating blood? After some deliberate consideration and (believe it or not) discussion with medical community members to understand the science somewhat, it was determined that the ONLY way to avoid "eating" blood was to avoid this new form of ingest as well as mouth consumption. JWs don't profess infallibility, but rather than disobey or disrespect Jehovah, JWs will err on the side of caution, becoming more disciplined and strict in the understanding until more information is revealed. Hope this helps diffuse some of the tension.
You keep missing the point that JWs--those that like being Witnesses--believe that Jesus is our leader. Your mileage may vary. --DannyMuse 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that JWs believe Jesus to be their leader is not relevant to the issue regarding which blood components they are permitted to use, which are decided by people, and the leadership has previously acknowledged that they do not claim inspiration. Mileage?--Jeffro77 08:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That being said, I find your compromise [changes to the main article] language acceptable. --DannyMuse 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeffro77, it's interesting to note that you only respond to items of contention and never--at least in our interactions--seem to remark on areas where we agree. Why is that? --DannyMuse 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to redundantly gush over points of discussion that have been resolved. I'm sorry if you think that makes me come over as contentious.--Jeffro77 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be expecting or even wanting any "redundant gushing," that sounds nasty. But perhaps some civil acknowledgement would be nice. --DannyMuse 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate where you're coming from, I just don't tend to bother with unnecessary replies. I deal with a LOT of e-mails in my work day, and replies consisting solely of "Thanks", "Me too", or "I agree" get a bit tedious, so I don't tend to do the same. In WikiLand, if I think that a point has been resolved, but am not sure, I might mentioned that a compromise seems to be reached to determine whether there is really concensus, but if an issue is resolved, I tend to move on. It is not my intent to seem uncivil, and I'll keep your comment in mind.--Jeffro77 08:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent repeated vandalism

Perhaps this article should be protected from edits by newly registered or anonymous users. It would save a lot of trouble. I've put a request in. BenC7 10:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

The user Jwfacts has recently made an edit with reference to jwfacts.com. If the author of jwfacts.com is also the Wikipedia, JWFacts, it would constitute self-promotion and original research. It should probably be changed, re-sourced, or removed.--Jeffro77 12:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concern about self-promotion and that's been an issue before with other users also. We have at times permitted similar edits to remain on occasion, however. Is this original research? It seems to collate the pubilshed statistics into charts. Dtbrown 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the edits by this user would generally be hard to criticize in terms of factual accuracy or neutrality, I am OK with keeping them. I don't think it is the user's goal to promote themselves/their website. BenC7 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cruel and arbitrary?

excessively POV, especially in the intro. It is an illogical statement, and extremely emotive. illogical since it is in no way arbitrary, there are specific scriptural grounds for this, of which all prospective JWs are aware. You may as well point out that David Icke claims that JWs and Mormons are the same organization run by 12 foot shape shifting illuminati lizards. As it stands, the intro is little less emotive and POV than Icke's view. If such statements are to be allowed at all, should they not perhaps be in the criticisms section, where apparently it is open slather? I don't mind reference to controversies regarding JWs to be in the intro, but their must be neutrality especially in that section. I mean, if I said in the 'Calithumpian Church' page, that 'critics allege that CC members eat their babies' or in the section on Judaism I added a section in the into 'it is believed by some that Jews form part of a 'Zionist global conspiracy', would that be acceptable?

It would be POV if it was stated as the view of the article. It isn't presented that way. The controversy on the Witness practice of disfellowshipping and shunning is well known in the press and deserves mention in the article. The Witness position is well presented in the sentences before that statement and the statement in question balances the presentation. Dtbrown 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the section on 'weasel words', use of pejorative terms shouldn't be hidden by qualifications such as 'some believe'. To mention controversy regarding the practice seems sensible, but to describe it as considered 'cruel and arbitrary' is verdict before trial, and as such deserves no place in the intro, in my opinion. Eusebius12 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're referring to the introduction, and not the article itself. The article itself correctly attributes the comment to a specific critic. Introducing controversy in the introduction is encouraged. joshbuddy, talk 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is no real place for this remark. It really belongs elsewhere. The intro is not for weasel words and veiled condemnations. In any case, I am not aware of great media publicity regarding this matter. The bulk of criticism on this matter is sourced from ex-JWs, a subset with a naturally prejudiced viewpoint. This sentence diminishes the value of the article as a whole. It is unnecessary to form a readers viewpoint for them. Tell them the facts, and then they can judge whether the practise is 'cruel and arbitrary'. I checked the Islam article, and it doesn't add a para in the intro mentioning that 'the Islamic practise of beheading those who leave the Islamic faith has been deemed cruel and arbitrary by critics'. I hope someone will rewrite the passage, eliding that last sentence. I have no fundamental objection to the fact that this is 'controversial', but my first reaction would be to omit the entire paragraph. Blood (or door-to-door preaching, in some circles) is the most controversial issue wrt Witnesses, we don't need a bullet list of 'issues' of ever-diminishing importance constipating the introduction. Eusebius12 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In my area, if you said something about Jehovah's Witnesses you'd hear about blood or child molestation from them. I don't really think disfellowshiping is on anyone's mind unless they are or know someone who was disfellowshiped. Frankly, I think most critics who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses would probably think it were for the better that they are no longer around them. Instead of making it a paragraph about Disfellowshipping, why not about the controversy surrounding the group in general?--RedLantern 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses is" vs "Jehovah's Witnesses are"

I've read the arguments but I have a hard time accepting that using "Jehovah's Witnesses is" instead of "Jehovah's Witnesses are" is what we should use. Grammatical rules aside, it grates to my ears. I think we should change it back to "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." Dtbrown 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It does sound a little odd, but it is still correct. Unfortunately. BenC7 01:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Correctness be damned! I will not be a slave to grammar rules. Surely this is a place where bending them makes a bit of sense. joshbuddy, talk 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, sacrificing readability for one view of technical grammatical correctness does not seem like a good approach. joshbuddy, talk 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion. I would ask if any other reference works use the convention being suggested? I've never seen this in any other reference work. As far as I remember, it's always "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." This is also the standard usage of Witnesses themselves and that should be the deciding factor, in my opinion. Dtbrown 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Readability over correctness. BenC7 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If you refer to the movie, X-Men (an arbitrary example), do you say "X-Men are a movie"? No. When a plural functions as a singular noun, it is completely standard to apply verbs in regard to the singular. I do agree though, that in a sentence such as "Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence", it reads better with 'have', and it is fine to defer to that use whenever the sense of the sentence is not adversely affected by referring to a group of members rather than the organization. (Alternatively, such sentences could be reworded to something like "The religion has an active presence".) However the article is about the religion, so it should be properly referenced in the introduction at the very least. Maintaining incorrect usage just so that some can feel better about their ignorance of English grammar benefits no one.--Jeffro77 08:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be best in instances where the religious body as a whole is being referred to, to use terminology such as 'the religious organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses' or the like. Jehovah's Witnesses is obviously a term of some ambiguity, clarifying terms would be in order. 'Jehovah's Witnesses is the name of a large international religious organization' perhaps. I don't know, those of you who are considered wordsmiths might be able to chisel something acceptable out of this phrase. To say, "Jehovah's Witnesses is.." is extremely awkward as well as grammatically incorrect.

As an example of usage which clarifies rather than obfuscates, (although not strictly analogous), the CJCLD is popularly known as 'The Mormons'. Individual members are known as Mormons. However, the body is known as the CJCLD. It is no more cumbersome than that, in my opinion, to specify when referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious entity, to explicitly state that the body rather than individuals is being discussed. Eusebius12 12:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The practice followed by the religion we are writing about is to say "Jehovah's Witnesss are..." It is also followed by other reference works. Is there a precedent in any other reference work to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is..."? Dtbrown 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite what was incorrectly stated by "Eusebius12", it is indeed grammatically correct to use verbs in the singular when referring to a proper noun that contains a plural that functions in the singular. Thus, 'Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion of which Jehovah's Witnesses are members'. Their self-ascribed usage is ambiguous, and the correct way to distinguish that ambiguity is to refer to the organization in the singular, as it properly is. The only reason it looks awkward is because people are used to referring to it incorrectly. In any case, I'll just add the full name of the organization, and that will alleviate the problem.--Jeffro77 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Good call here. And I don't think you used enough exclamation points in your edit comment. :) joshbuddy, talk 15:46, 18 October 2006(UTC)
According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Congregation_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses "The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is not the name of the religion but of one of the legal corporations. If that is the case, then we cannot leave the edit the way it is. Jeffro says: "The only reason it looks awkward is because people are used to referring to it incorrectly." I still disagree. I have asked more than once: are there any other reference works that do this? I don't know of any. Why should Wikipedia be insistent on this? As it stands, changing the first sentence to "The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is incorrect as that is not the name of the religion. Dtbrown 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth, (Watchtower 15 November 1996 p27), "The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is an international brotherhood," which defines it as not merely a corporation, but as the religion itself. There are several other similar references in JW publications.--Jeffro77 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not in the common usage, though. I think using such a term would only confuse people; the context that you have provided is more of a phrase than a proper name (otherwise all the letters would be capitalized). How about this: "Jehovah's Witnesses is the name given to an international religion whose members believe it to be the restoration of first-century Christianity. The same name is also used for members of the religion." Still a bit awkward IMO, but factually and grammatically correct, and a little less hard-to-read than "Jehovah's Witnesses is...".
The example given is not in caps and does not function as a name for the group. If we were to adopt "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" we would need to think about renaming the article to follow suit. That would be a very bad idea, IMO. I'll go with "Jehovah's Witnesses is the name..." but I really think that it's unnecessary. No other reference work harps on this point and JW usage is enough to determine what we should use here.Dtbrown 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Commonality over grammatical exactness. That makes sense. The only time I've ever heard or seen Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is in letterhead, and passingly referred to in wt articles. I'm going to take a shot at a compromise edit. On second thought, this is probably as good as it gets. Convention as given this way of referring to it too much momentum. It comes down to the variability of the term Jehovah's Witnesses. Sometimes its plural (collective) and sometimes to singular (the religious entity). The thing is, we can't use both is and are within the same article to refer to them. Need to pick one., can't use both. joshbuddy, talk 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly do we "need to pick one., can't use both"??? When it's plural, "are" should be used, and when it's singular, "is" should be used. However, if we have to cater for people who can't grasp the rules of grammar, the next best thing is a less wordy version of Dtbrown's suggestion for the introduction: "Jehovah's Witnesses is the name of an international religion whose members believe it to be the restoration of first-century Christianity."--Jeffro77 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro: are the rules of grammar so clear? For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g28.html says this is "generally" the rule. As I researched this elsewhere I found entries which suggested there are times not to use the singular. There are also differences between British and American usage. Dtbrown 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I came across these examples from two online encyclopedias:

http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wb/Article?id=ar287080

Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of...

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0004118

Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious denomination, known for their door-to-door canvassing. Dtbrown 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


I'll put it this way. It is never said, 'I belong to Jehovah's Witnesses' but rather I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses or I am a Jehovah's Witness' as you probably all know. The term is generally used by us to describe a group of individuals, rather than the group as a whole. Eusebius12 06:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dtbrown, surely you are aware that an error being widespread does not make it correct. As Eusebius12 stated above, JWs usually using the term in reference to a group of members in the plural. However the article is about the religion as a whole. Saying "Jehovah's Witnesses are members" of something does not actually identify the religion of which they are members. The article should seek to clarify the ambiguity, regardless of whether other sources fail to do so. Further, referring to the grammar page linked above, the "generally" is in reference to preference of using singular verbs, particularly in American English (which has previously been agreed to be the appropriate style for a religion headquartered in America), unless "the individuals in the collection or group receive the emphasis", which is not the case when referring to the religion as a whole.--Jeffro77 08:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not claim to be a grammar expert. I do think, however, that this article is not the place for us to correct a "widespread error." Standard practice is to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are." This is done both by the Witnesses themselves and by other authorities. There are exceptions to grammar rules and obviously this is one of them. Dtbrown 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny thing is, widespread usage does sort of validate it. Grammar is a tool, not our master. There are lots of funny little grammatical changes that have slipped into english without anyone being able to stop them. For instance, do you start a sentence "Luckily, Dtbrown was able to make the change." This is considered (by some) bad grammar (luckily should not be used as a sentence adverb). But widespread usage has made it acceptable. joshbuddy, talk 19:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization picture

While I agree the picture represents the point of view of the Watchtower as to its own organization structure, as opposed to actual fact, I would argue it is of value, in as much as it is our intention to represent the Jehovah's Witness point of view to some limited extent. Perhaps it would be advisable to caption it as such, or move it to the more Jehovah's Witness-centric Beliefs and Practices section. joshbuddy, talk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


59 kilobytes long

The main article is, according to the standard, too long. I feel that the article does include too many words. Does it actually have to include such a long introduction? And does it actually have to include that long section about history? These topics are dealt with in detail in the spcific articles. Summer Song 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the history of the movement should be a central part of the article. The history section was significantly shortened many months ago. Perhaps the introduction could use some trimming. Dtbrown 07:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the section Overview could need some smaller trimming. I hope everyone will be willing to work with this. Summer Song 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this long intro should be cut away to keep the article shorter. The rest of the article should be readable for the one who wants an overview. Summer Song 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead needs to be more than two sentences. I have reverted the changes. I think you also need to explain your recategorization spree, perhaps most suitably on the JW project page. BenC7 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The introduction NEEDS to be kept shorter. After some comparisations I think it should be done the way I am doing it now. Summer Song 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New World Translation

The Watchtower Society quotes so many translations of the bible; how can someone say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the New World translation is the most accurate translation? This assertion needs to be supported by a published statement. -RogerK 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was a given. That the NWT is viewed as "superior" to other versions is well documented in Watchtower publications. Dtbrown 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

I thought JWs is largely considered a cult --frothT C 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Jamie 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. BenC7 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think cult is a dangerous word to use. It is a very objective and loaded term. It conjures visions of suicide pacts and attempts to bring down the government. I think we should avoid referring to recognized religion as cult. Valley2city 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is objective, but sometimes it is needed. I am sure you have heard of the Aum cult in Japan. What you may not be aware of is that they have legal shops in Akihabara(Tokyo,Japan) for cult fund raising. Nobody is protesting that they are being called a cult. Look in the contravercies section and read up on blood. It is martyrdom. THe mosiac punishment for the taking of blood was only 3 days of uncleanness(less than the period of uncleanness when a women is menstruating), even Jesus got rid of the Law.
I think you mean 'subjective'. But yes, it is largely considered a cult, regardless of what connotations the word might have for various people. BenC7 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is toying with semantics a bit. Whether they are a cult is debatable depending on what definitions are applied. But many non-members do consider the religion to be a cult.--Jeffro77 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is toying with semantics, but if you asked 100 people who have never been Jehovahs Witnesses why would you think their perception of the "religion" would be. The "religion" itself has a lot of cult trappings one you are inside, such as not being allowed to read critical material. I would like to see the introduction changed to an "International Christian sect" since the founder was a Seventh Day Adventist that broke away. The "Religion" is not old and does not conform to Orthodox Christian rules and creeds. In France and other countries they are not considered a "religion" (Church). Just a quick search in google will produce some refernce to the face they are a sect e.g. http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw6.html 219.109.235.241 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

a something-to-do

"Jehovah's Witnesses' attitudes towards the United Nations and towards members of other religions, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, have also been controversial."

Can someone elaborate on this in the article? Perhaps make this stand-alone sentence a nice meaty paragraph or two? With sources? —EdGl 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disturbingly, i can not seem to effect any changes in this section, does anyone know why? 5AM, 8th Dec 2006

Watchtower Society advises JWs not to edit JW Wikipedia articles...?

In recent conversation with CobaltBlueTony I've learned that the Watchtower Society (through the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses) has issued formal advice that JWs not edit JW Wikipedia articles. Most of the JW editors have stopped editing these pages. I am saddened this has happened as I felt that despite some of the occasional editing wars we were forging some good relationships between the JW and non-JW editors. Perhaps some JW editors will decide to stay to help edit the articles.

Does anyone have access to any letters from the Watchtower Society about JWs not editing JW articles on Wikipedia? I would be very interested in reading it. If so, please contact me. Thanks! Dtbrown 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would happen eventually but I myself have not heard about this, yet, I am not surprised this advice was offered. I am closing all ties with editing of this page as well, most likely, even if I don't hear it directly, I've seen why they've advised this, so I'll take precuations now to create some closure between me and this article. Knuckles sonic8 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Knuckles_sonic8, what is your take on this? You say you see why they've advised this. Could you share with the non-JW editors more about the rationale for this? I realize there are problems that have developed from editing from both sides. Personally, I think some form of permanent semi-protection would be better for a page that can be a controversial subject. We have in the past had some good consensus edits including both JWs and non-JWs. I don't really think it's in the best interests of these articles for them not to reflect the presence of JW editors. Dtbrown 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Without betting into too much detail, basically, the caution seems to be, first of all, not to get too involved in updating resources that may include false information about the Witnesses. Such could lead to further unwanted questioning. There's also the (more notable) fact that the Watchtower Society publishes accurate information on the Witnesses and the organization. There is no need for secular resources documenting information about the Witnesses. Such may be, unwittingly, considered as apostate and could put a witness at risk of listening to apostate viewpoints. Don't take my word on this but that's to my comprehension, not what I believe. I'm just interpreting what the caution is. I probably should, really, stop updating these messages so don't expect to hear another message (or edit, for that matter) from me anytime soon (if at all). I may, however, look at what you post next but I will refrain from using the article for any reasons. Knuckles sonic8 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another mind control method of the WTBS. "Avoid letting your thinking be challenged! Let us tell you what to believe! Do not think for yourselves!". I feel sorry for the people who listen to these things for fear that if they should do something so evil as to look at a Wikipedia page about their own beliefs, they might see things as they really are. BenC7 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not really a huge loss, most JWs cant openly discuss a lot of the doctrinal issues as they only follow "New light" and the truth (i.e.::: Its not really a huge loss, most JWs cant openly discuss a lot of the doctrinal issues as they only follow "New light" and the truth (i.e. NPOV) only goes as far as the Theocratic War Strategy allows. The JWs here have as much as an axe to grind as the "Apostates". This Article will never be NPOV or even close. NPOV) only goes as far as the Theocratic War Strategy allows. 219.109.235.241 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
219.109.235.241, was it Theocratic War Strategy on your part to say your last edit to the article was a "spelling mistake" and then change "religious organization" to "sect"? You may not believe in NPOV. That's fine. But, then, editing Wikipedia is not for you. Just because some JW editors may be leaving does not give the non-JW editors the license to ignore NPOV. Dtbrown 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I firmly believe in being NPOV I just dont think it can happen with this article. Read the wiki page on what is as sect and see how it relates to the JW "religion". Not many papers have been written outside JWs that could be considered nonpartial. So most referenced here are their own. Although doctrin can be argued, there is very litle public information to build up a NPOV statment. Apostates will go as far as calling JW "religion" a cult. But do you know in Russia and other eastern European countries can see that they are a cult and should be give such status. This latest letter just shows how much of a cult(if not sect) they really are. Supression of criticism (cult behaviour) in this case wikipedia is been shown.
And, how was your last edit a "spelling mistake"? [13] Making this article NPOV is quite a challenge and may never be completely satisfactory. It's still worth trying to achieve. Dtbrown 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, if anyone has a copy of a letter from the WT Society that speaks to this issue and would be willing to share it, please contact me. I can be reached via Wikipedia email. Dtbrown 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As you may or may not know, I stopped editing this article a while back for reasons unrelated to this (e.g. the Tommstein/Central debacle). However, I did see a copy of the letter in question (it was a response written to CobaltBlueTony's letter). The gist of it was that the WB&TS website contains adequate information on JWs and their beliefs. They themselves feel no need to actively contribute to a freely editable resource (i.e. Wikipedia) nor any need for individual JWs to do so either. I don't remember the letter containing any strong warnings against editing here. The message I got out of it was "there's not much point in defending your beliefs on Wikipedia; your time is probably better spent elsewhere". I'm sure Tony still has the letter. If you ask him, he may let you see it.
The "mind control" comments are childish, unwarranted, and downright offensive. The use of these ugly remarks whenever a JW disagreed with an opinion was one of the reasons I stopped editing here. We all make their own decisions about what we will and will not read or discuss. I chose to cease participation in this article early this year because I spent a wholly unproductive amount of time arguing over minutia (a sentence, a single word) here that I could spend writing entire articles elsewhere on Wikipedia (and since I've written a featured article and another one on its way to FA). If someone politely chooses to stop editing an article, you should respect that rather than embark on a nearly pious lament about their sad "brainwashed" state. Sorry for the quasi-rant, but if you actually want JW editors to stay around, perhaps you should show some measure of respect for their views and avoid the inflammatory remarks. Perhaps you don't see it this way, but mocking the WB&TS is tantamount to personally insulting a devout JW, and mockery has no place in an academic discussion anyway. Anyway, I recently re-read this article, and it's in very good shape now compared to what it was a year ago. I don't think I'd even want to change anything about it, so congrats on writing a fair article on a difficult subject. Edit: The rant wasn't intended for you, Dtbrown. You've always been quite civil and matter-of-fact about editing here. Edit2: Also take this with a grain of salt. BenC7 is far from incivil and is a good contributor. I just wanted to point out that suggesting that anybody has their thoughts controlled is rather offensive and should be avoided. -- mattb @ 2006-12-12T15:21Z
You, Matt, may have made your own decision, but that is not always the case. The posts by User:Knuckles_sonic8 above mine indicate that people are not making their own decisions, but that others are essentially making decisions for them. Any cult-like action like this (any group that tries to insulate its members from outside information is cultish), whether it is done by JWs or by any other group, oppresses people's freedom. As far as I am concerned, JWs are people too, and deserve the right to think for themselves. The person above clearly did not make their own decision based on certain aggrevations such as you did, but out of a fear that he might see 'apostate' information. When people's rights (freedoms) are restricted or taken away, you can't expect that others will simply sit by in silence and say nothing. BenC7 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben, are you told to avoid reading WT literature in your church? Told not to speak to Wtinesses? Most people are. People say witnesses avoid contact with their family who dont share their faith. How often I have seen family shun their witness relatives. You orthoxists need t clean out your own eyes.

Am I told to avoid reading WT literature? In my 7½ years as a Christian I have never been told that, or seen anyone telling anyone else things to that effect. I am free to read whatever I wish. Am I told not to speak to Witnesses? No. (Would I be here if that were the case?) I'm not exactly sure what an "orthoxist" is, but there are no double-standards here. BenC7 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitary section break 1

I didn't phrase things right. What was said is, quite frankly, what I believe. I meant in the way that I'm not giving my own opinions as to what is right and wrong. I do think on my own despite what my above post may have suggested. Even still, I willingly allow the WTBS guide my thinking as they keep my thoughts focused and straight ahead. I thought it was pretty important that I cleared that up... Knuckles sonic8 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a sugggestion not a requirment. The WB&TS wasn't saying "You will not do this or you will die in and not be saved." That's what you act like it said. You really should not act like an authority on something that you obviously have no idea what your talking about, because if you know about how the JW's work, you really wouldn't say that. JW's can think on their own. Other religions just aren't used to that so they tense up and start calling names. For example, say you have a child. You love this child very much and don't want anything to happen to him/her. So would you tell him/her that they should go into the your bed room and play cops and robbers with your real hand cuffs and your hand gun? no, you would tell him/her not to go into the street, not to put their hand on the burner, not to play with matches, and not even mention where the gun is and keep it in a locked case. This would keep them out of a lot of harm, right? So simmilarly God tells the WB&TS, through the bible, the things for his people that will keep them out of harms way and to make sure that they stay safe. Kawalski75 1:33 pm 12/15/06

Thank you. Finally someone who can help me clear up these misconceptions. Nice illustration BTW. Knuckles sonic8 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Welcome. And can you believe I'm only 15. kawalski75 3:01 pm 12/15/06

You just proved the point I was trying to make. You may indeed be a child and need adult guidance in some things. Fine. The problem occurs when adults are treated in the same way, as if they are incapable of making a decision about what is or isn't good for them on their own. Are you honestly trying to tell me that reading about your own religion in an encyclopedia article is bad for you spiritually? Gimme a break.
Fortunately, the WTBS changes its mind about what people should or shouldn't do often enough that the evidence for its wrong-ness is right there in what it has written. They claim their changes of doctrine is "new light" - but sometimes a decision will be made, then completely reversed to what it was originally. Funny how the "new light" gets darker again. Is such an organization being led by the Holy Spirit? Hmm.
"Oh, but it is run by fallible men," you say. You would have to wonder then, why they are obeyed unquestionably and are the source of all doctrinal knowledge. You might do well to read Statements of the Watchtower Society. If you don't need permission to read an encyclopedia article, that is. BenC7 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen me for awhile. Probably wont again for awhlie. Adults do need guidance, read Jeremiah 10:23 and Acts 8:27-30. (Really read them) How many times were the Israelites told to adjust their thinking? They were God's people. People make mistakes. David, Peter, Moses. JW's do adjust their thinking when it is required. Interesting that we are the only religion that seems brave enough to do so. The slave doesn't have all the answers. In my opinion they have the best answers. George 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point George. Has someone got a tissue for BenC7 so he can dry his eyes?? Jamie 11:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Benc7, you say that you think that just reading an article and/or editing it would not be bad because there is "no reason" why you could run into an apostate, right? Well what you don't seem to realize is that you are EXACTLY the reason the WB&TS tells us to not to view this page. Also what you don't seem to realize is that it was a suggestion, but even though it was a suggestion to us it is considered a the right thing to do. Even though the "fallible men" that run it don't have all the answers, they do have the best, and most correct, because we base our beliefs, as close as possible, off the whole bible, which seems to be funny to me because we are the only religion to do that. Also the WB&TS doesn't have all the answers but that is why we have god. No where in the bible does it say that gods people are going to be perfect individuals, nor does it say that they will understand the bible totally and completely the first time the read it. They are just changing some of the small things, like our view on smoking and other SMALL things. Never has the WB&TS changed our view on the bible. The bible is the main thing that we use for teaching. The three main things that we believe have always been the same. For God's name to be sanctified, for his will to be done on earth and for his kingdom to come. I'm sick of people who think that they know everything when in reality they know abosolutly nothing.

95% of other "Christians" will tell their members that the worst person ever is satan, yet once a year for about two months their only focus is "Let's go party with that guy". 99% of other "Christians" and not to mention other religions will celebrate a holladay that cammemerates that birth of Jesus, which in Luke 2:8 it is said that "There were also in that same country shepherds living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks." Now geologists say that the climate was the same as utah. Now why would shepperds, who rely on those flocks for food and life, keep their flocks out in the freezing cold that would kill them. Also take santa, rearrange the letters and what do you get?? Satan. Those are just a few of the things that I could go into. JW celebrate neither of these hollidays. Why would a cult who doesn't want their people to get involved in a in anything so that their people don't find out about their "true ways", know so much about false religious hollidays. Kawalski75 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! Santa is an anagram for Satan! I had better become a JW at once!! BenC7 02:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be advisable to read Statements of the Watchtower Society before classing their doctrinal changes as 'minor'. Unless you class things like the return of Jesus, the end of the world, etc. as 'minor'. "Never has the WB&TS changed our view on the bible." Are you sure? After all, according to the WBTS, it contains mistakes! BenC7 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ben, I agree that this is some sad and perhaps telling stuff. CyberAnth 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change your opinion because you obviously are too stubborn for that. I'm just trying to keep your lies from changing honestly intrested people from being corrupted. I'm no longer going to post on this page. I didn't realize that one post was going to lead into what it is now.

PS By the way if you are interested don't go to those sites that he posted. They have nothing to do with what the WB&TS has really done. Yes I admit that if you look at one little thing about the teachings of JW's it can seem to be disturbing, but if you we're to back out and to see the whole picture then you would realize that it is the truth.

PSS The whole Santa Satan thing was just something that I thought was funny. I din't mean it to be considered a fact on why they called him that.

Also they have no relation to the WB&TS what-so-ever. If you want some reliable information on JWs then go to http://www.watchtower.org/ Or you can talk to a witnesses in your area. You really shouldn't rely on outside information on JWs. None of is as accurate as you get from the WB&TS.Kawalski75 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are to exclusively take the Watchtower's view of itself as a definitive authority about itself, should not we also only take the Vatican's view of itself in the same way? Why not also apply the same standard to every entity? CyberAnth 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - I doubt that if you wanted impartial information on Al-Qaeda that you would go to them! BenC7 06:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

While I support a shortened lead, I think it should be longer than 3-4 sentences (see this edit). The things that most people know JWs for (blood transfusions, doorknocking) are not even mentioned, for example. Perhaps a new lead should be constructed here, and it can be posted in the article once there is consensus. In the meantime I have replaced the original lead, which might be more useful for people to take from. BenC7 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben! Perhaps we could trim the lead a little but not to 3 or 4 sentences. Dtbrown 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we can start up with this:

Jehovah's Witnesses are a world-wide religious organization who believe that they are the restoration of first-century Christianity. The preaching, evangelistic and publishing activities of Jehovah's Witnesses are extensive, and congregations have been established in most parts of the world. In contrast to mainstream Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses reject doctrines such as the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul.

If you would like to add something, you are free to tell here. Summer Song 05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think it should include:

  • The fact that they have only been around for ~100 years

-- *That they a few splinter groups such as Bible Students and Jehovahs Witnesses of Romania

  • Approximate size
  • A mention of the Watchtower magazine and door-to-door preaching
  • A paragraph for controversies (since there are so many) - blood, doctrinal differences, flip-flops, neutrality, NWT, etc.
  • The belief that Jesus returned in 1914

-- Invisibly. 219.109.235.241 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • A mention of the Governing Body
  • A mention of the 144,000

-- * that they don't follow the Nicene Creed and they are not Coptic Orthodox

These are in no particular order - I just don't have the time (or motivation) to write another lead myself right now. BenC7 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I am not in totally agree. Why mention everything about organization, particular teachings, etc ? I think it would be more encyclopedic to let the intro be mentioning a very few details, hence push the readers to read the rest of the article.Summer Song 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to WP:LEDE, the lead for this article should be several paragraphs long. As just one paragraph, it doesn't give a sufficient overview/summary of the content of the article. BenC7 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit to the lead in has restored the claim that critics view disfellowshipping as punitive. Disfellowshipping is intended to be punitive, so the statement is meaningless. More generally, the lead is too long, as is the whole article, which should probably be broken down more into separately-linked articles.--Jeffro77 10:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Any references to the effect that disfellowshipping is punitive? I'm sure I researched this properly in the past, but I'll take a look again to get the facts on that one. joshbuddy, talk 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
'punitive': inflicting punishment. 'punish': to administer discipline. See Watchtower 1 October 2003 page 22 paragraph 3.--Jeffro77 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the quote on the definition of discipline as it applies to the article on disfellowshipping in the Nov 16 2006 Wt page 26 Paragraph 2. This is the article being studied in all congregations this week:
"Discipline refers to chastisement,correction, instruction, and education." Then it quotes Heb 12:11
And also in paragraph 18:
No loving shepherd beats a bleating lamb for hurting itself. When elders deal with erring fellow believers, therefore, it is a matter not of crime and punishment but of sin and spiritual restoration where possible.Elders must judge with righteousness and treat the flock with tenderness
Hope this helps you edit properly.George 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, George! I added this info to the lead. I hope I got it right. Feel free to edit it, if needed. Dtbrown 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other sects

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other sects, to include Jehovah's Witnesses views on the subject. After the draft looks good and is expanded sufficiently on user space, it can be posted as an article to Religious views on masturbation. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) -- Very good to bring up, a lot of their lit is relevant. It is a sin for them to do it greedily but there is a footnote on the young people ask book saying that masturbation is not even mentioned in the bible 219.109.235.241 05:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)