Talk:The Watchtower/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Prophecies 2 Samrolken 3 Hey 4 Photograph 5 Neutrality 5.1 Efforts to counter the activities of Mormon missionaries 5.2 Neutrality 2.0 6 Recent Edits 7 Comments on most recent version 7.1 Eschatology 7.1.1 George's reply to Tom's suggestions 7.1.2 Tom's suggestion 1 (a short and unbiased statement of the ongoing trouble about eschatology) 7.1.3 Tom's suggestion 2 (the JW perspective, followed by the critical view) 7.1.4 Tom's suggestion 3 (the critical view, followed by the JW perspective) 7.2 Cairoi's suggestion 7.3 Escatology Part II 7.4 Stated purpose 8 A philosophical note on what to include in articles 9 Recent Edits: Subheading 2: Deleted "activism for peace" phrase... 10 Who actually writes "The Watchtower"? 11 Wallkill, New York ? 12 NPOV?

Prophecies

Summersong, could you please be careful making mass deletes. This article was written slowly over time. The prophecies section was not a critique but an acknowledgement of critical views and contained a historical rebuttal of those views. I think it was npov. cairoi 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Samrolken

Sam I thought we had the distribution paragraph all worked out. I feel like you're going back on your word. cairoi 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know I would antagonize anyone: I never said that accurate information shouldn't be included. It's a fact that many witnesses don't adhere to the alleged recommendation to get permission first; I know of at least three places off hand here locally that they don't. When I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I didn't. How does this information not belong? Also, I would like to ask for a reference regarding the statement that "Distribution practices such as mailbox drops and placing stacks in public places are discouraged by the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses". Unsubstantiated information may not belong in the article. I think this information belongs, as long as it is tempered with the information that this activity is not authorized by the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Please feel free to edit the article to be more sympathetic to this view. Samrolken 02:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Samrolken, you were had agreed with me and others that the distribution paragraph covered the points that you felt were important to make. And we had agreed that the prophecies section also covered those points. I believe it is wrong both to sanitise this article of critical comments but also to give undue weight to critical points of view. The point of writing this article is not to bring across personal vendettas, or destroy people's faith, crush curiosity or advertise the views expounded in the Watchtower, but to report facts in an encyclopedic manner.

Your points about distribution and criticism of prophecies are addressed in the version I reverted to. Anymore weight would unduly emphasise them so that the article would become a polemic. Leaving them out would hide them so the article would become an advertisment. I would like to propose that any points about the doctrines of Jehovah's witnesses belong on the doctrine or practices pages. I would like to further propose that we discuss any further edits before they are made to this page in terms of the main theme of the article. Perhaps you could review your earlier conversation with DannyMuse and Tom H. regarding NPOV and fair and sympathetic tone under the neutrality section on this page.

cairoi 06:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Caroi, The criticisms section contained many actual criticisms, and your removal of them clearly indicates a desire to sanitize this article of any criticism of the magazine. I am re-adding the NPOV header until we can come to some kind of agreement on this. Samrolken 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Could someone please archive this page? I'm don't have time to be very involved with the discussion here. I have become busy with work lately and haven't had time to contribute, so I don't know where things stand and what is inactive enough to archive. I wish you all much luck knowing you will all work to make this article better. I might check in from time to time with some contributions though, who knows. I really hope my life makes room for wikipedia again sometime soon. Samrolken 08:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed in the article that some anonymous users have removed good content that was agreed upon by consensus long ago. Please be sure no work is lost. Samrolken 08:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

While watchtower (or more commonly awake!) magazines are indeed found in public places it is the rare occurance that they are placed w/o the property owner's knowledge. Indeed, such activity is discouraged in WBTS literature. The publishers of the Watchotwer would be disappointed if they saw a magazine on the windshield of a car where it could easily be damaged or thrown away. Therefore, while the picture on the article's page does not appear derrogatory, it is certainly not indicative of JW publishing practice, at least not in recent years. I feel either a different picture or none at all would be better.

This point goes well with the discussion below about "Laundromat publishing", such a practise of simply leaving literature w/o thought as to its' use should (and most certainly would) be discouraged by local elders if they know of it.

Votes for change or removal? george 20:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've felt for a long time that the picture should be replaced with a more accurate setting. cairoi 17:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you the setting is certainly accurate, since I didn't stage it. I just saw it under a windshield wiper and took a picture. It may not be an accurate portrayal of JW publishing philosophy, but it is indicative of JW publishing practice, at least in this one instance. To tell the truth, I'll bet if you asked 100 random non-JWs if they knew what Awake! Magazine was, maybe ten would know. And then if you asked where they had seen the magazine, I'll bet 9 out of 10 would say something along the lines of "left in a phone booth" or "on a bus stop bench". That may be unfortunate, but it's the impression people have.

What do you think would be a more accurate setting of how an non-JW would come into contact with Awake! Magazine? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 00:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for criticizing your photo. I think though that probably many more people would associate the Watchtower with Jehovah's Witnesses than the Awake!. The sterio-typical JW wears a suit, carries a briefcase and offers the Watchtower. Movies often portray an annoyingly happy person standing on the street offering the magazine. Why not make the picture NPOV and just have a picture of the magazine, full stop. And a caption stating the Watchtower is distributed by JW's. Easy Peasy! Would that suit? Again I didn't intend any offense. cairoi 00:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None taken, no sweat. I don't mind changing the image, but there are copyright issues. If I reproduce the cover of Watchtower or Awake! in full, I'm infringing on their copyright. (We could, however, make a fair use claim, but the image would not be releasable under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright). If, on the other hand, the magazine was just a part of the picture, and the cover was not shown in full, then the picture is fine to release under the GFDL. The picture of the mag under the windshield wiper is fine to use, for example, as would something like this (not that that would be a good image to use.) But a straight cover image like this wouldn't be allowable. If anyone can find or take a better free-license image, I'm fine with replacing the one here.

My first idea would be to take a photo of a person in a suit, standing in a doorway, holding forward a copy of the magazine and smiling. But then again, that could be playing into stereotypes as well. I'm interested in hearing from any JWs as to what a good image idea would be. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 19:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Quadell, I am sorry for offending you (if I did). It would be easy for me to get the picture we need. I don't think any of Jehovah's Witnesses would be offended by a picture of a person offering the magazine to another. It would be accurate. Can you tell me how to upload a picture to WP? (yes, I am an amateur)george 23:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That picture sounds good George. I wonder too if just fanning a few Watchtowers out on a table and taking a shot of that avoid copywrite problems? cairoi 23:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, Quadell. I think such a photo would even become the headline image for the article, easily! However, I don't see how it would be useful to remove the existing image. It's not like Wikipedia is limited for space, nor that there can only be one picture per article, so anything that reflects any facts should stay. I would favor putting some sympathetic caption such as, "Though The Watchtower is often distributed in [inpersonal ways, whatever], this practice is discouraged in favor of person-to-person contact." Samrolken 20:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While replacing Quadell's picture as the primary picture for the article is something we seem to have reached a rough consensus on, and think is best, I plan to bring it back as a secondary picture, perhaps for the section where inpersonal distribution mechanisms are covered. I would ask that someone help me write a correct and NPOV caption to match the good work that has been done on NPOV on the matching section in the article. Samrolken 09:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that magazines may be left in public places seems to me to be a very minor point. I'm wondering if repeating it three times (1 paragraph, 1 picture, 1 caption) would be overemphasising a minor fact making it a personal POV that is hammered into the readers mind. Just a thought that we might consider how facts are being weighted in the article. How does everyone feel about that? Samrolken, could you be happy with just the paragraph under distribution to accurately get your point across without all the bells, whistles, tooting horns and fireworks? cairoi 16:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The emphasis should be on what's typical; exceptions mentioned in passing (if at all). BTW, it's doubtful a JW would ever leave literature on a bus stop bench. More likely is that a Publisher placed it with a person and that person later left it on the bench. --DannyMuse 16:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never seen either magazine anywhere but on somebody's table, counter, or shelf. Perhaps the picture does give the wrong impression. "Here's the magazine. As you can see, it is distributed under wipers in parking lots." My personal stereotype is of a group of 5 people getting out of their cars with handbags in hand and hitting the neighborhood to do their work including distributing the magazines. Tom H. 21:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe that there are serious issues with neutrality. It cannot be denied that members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been looking over this article with good intentions, but with the unavoidable goal of casting a favorable light on their religion. Therefore, I am adding neutrality dispute notices to this page, and other pages affected by the same phenomenon, until more neutral people can become involved. Samrolken

Hi. I'm Tom. User:George_m graciously extended to me an invitation to join your discussion. I think you guys are doing a good job, and I like the good faith evident in your discussions above. From what I understand of our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, it is of course a good thing to discuss controversial ideas and organizations using a consistently fair and sympathetic tone. What this article might could use is a little editing from a fresh eye. I am going to be bold here today and edit the article freely. That way you will see where I envision that things ought to be. Then if you have to revert me or (more hopefully) severely edit me, I will have at least contributed my fresh and honest attempt. And we can discuss things from there as needed. I hope that's okay, and I hope I'm not being disrespectful by so diving in. Tom - Talk 15:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, welcome to the fray. --DannyMuse 16:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Danny. I think the article is okay except for the last section on prophecies over the years, which comes across as excessively accusatory. I don't think it has to go. In fact, I think the content is important. But it needs some framing language to put it into a sympathetic context. For example, see this fragment from another article that comes to mind: Tom - Talk

Why does it need to be put into a sympathetic context? I find that an alarming declaration against NPOV! It should be placed in a factual context, and nothing more! Samrolken 04:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Really, while the information listed came mostly out of Wt magazines, some of it did not, such os the quoting of a conventioneer and a talk given by a former president of the Wt society. I am wondering if a page or group of pages dedicatd to Ex-JW's would be a novel idea? It would probably just becaome a sounding board for attacking JW beliefs and practices... Comments?

george 20:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again carefully and then we can talk about your concern with a common understanding. Tom - Talk 19:40, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

As long as the facts are kept straight, you're fine to stretch it to symapthize with whatever floats your boat, I guess. Samrolken 08:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am required to make it fair and sympathetic in tone. And which facts do I include? It isn't always very easy, but I'm sure we are all doing our best. Even I who have been historically suspicious and accusatory toward the JWs in my thoughts can be sympathetic. Tom - Talk 15:07, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Efforts to counter the activities of Mormon missionaries

Given that Mormon missionaries include mainstream Christians in their proselytizing efforts, some Christian organizations have published tracts or brochures designed to counter or defend against Mormon missionaries. Conciliar Press, a department of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, has published a brochure designed to protect Orthodox Christians from the proselytizing efforts of what it describes as "cultists" (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). The following excerpt is exemplary of the strong partisan feelings involved:

Although there are important differences between ancient Gnosticism and Mormonism, the similarities are striking. They both replace biblical Christianity with a very elaborate set of legends and esoteric teachings found, for Mormons, in the fanciful tales of The Book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph Smith.... Firstly, one might ask why God would have allowed His people to dwell in darkness for almost two thousand years after Christ, until the coming of Smith...to lead them to the truth. One might also ask why any intelligent person would become a part of a religious movement founded by [a man] whose dishonesty is so apparent. Finally, what good reason could there be for believing self-proclaimed prophets whose teachings contradict the clear doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, instead of holding to the truth proclaimed by the Church founded by Christ and led by His Apostles and their successors? (Cultist at my Door: An Orthodox Examination of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, published by Conciliar Press)

The text of this excerpt, in its style, tone, and quality, and the title and source of the document it comes from, are demonstrative of the official efforts many denominations of traditional Christianity now are pursuing, as well as their position on Mormonism.

I get the idea that the quotes show 1) that emphasizing and believing in the imminence of the proximate visit of the Son of God is an important part of a Christian walk and 2) that the value of placing nearby dates on His appearance and the end of business as usual overrides the embarrassment of "being wrong". Can somebody frame them appropriately? We do not, I repeat, do not seek at Wikipedia to go about devastating the faith of little ones within the JW flock who may happen upon this article. Tom - Talk 16:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality 2.0

Are we still in dispute or can we remove the npov msg? Your comments are welcome here. george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The warning should be removed. I just read the article over. I am certainly biased against JW (particularly for their views on evolution and blood transfusions for children) but I fail to see a neutrality problem with this article. It seems factual as to print runs, readership, and influence within the JW church. The article clearly states the magazine presents the views of the JH, the views are therefore framed. Further warning is redundant and itself a bias against JH. Vincent 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's there at the moment because the page is constantly changing and anything that is not NPOV can pop up at any time. Zikar 04:11, 8 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Right, but that could be said about almost any WP page! I say we remove it and put it back if needed. --DannyMuse 04:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, because I just though about that just before a read your reply. Zikar 07:15, 8 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Well then, I will remove the msg now george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Today I've made a number of edits and thought it might be helpful to put some explanation here:

1 - Agents - in two places I removed the expression "agents" from the paragraph describing the distribution of the WT. While I suppose it is technically not incorrect, as the word means "one empowered to act for or represent another" or simply "a representative", it implies that the "agent" is not a party to that which they represent. This is of course not true of JWs. Only active Publishers engage in the distribution of their literature.

(Definition of "agent" from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

2 - Deleted "activism for peace" phrase describing JWs view of WT distribution. This is inaccurate. Although JWs do consider themselves "peacemakers" (see w01 9/1 p. 11, para. 11) they would not use the word "activism" to describe their ministry due to its political overtones. Also, they believe that true peace on earth will only come from God's Kingdom rule. - Mt. 6:9,10

I will find you the study article from last year which discussed JW's ministry as activism for peace. Very good edits. I look forward to what's coming. Thankyou. cairoi 18:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To cairoi, I'd certainly be interested in that. Let me know what you find. I searched the 2003 WT CD-ROM using the keywords "activism" and "peace" and came up with only one reference:

"Jesus did not try to reform government. He taught his followers to wait patiently for God's Kingdom. It alone, by massive intervention at the appropriate time, would bring peace, justice and equality to the human family. Never did he advocate political activism." (g84 8/8 p. 26) - Emphasis added

I did find one reference to the word "activism" being used to describe our ministry, but it was quoting a Catholic, writer Vittorio Messori:

"It makes you think when you realize that one of these apocalyptical sects-Jehovah's Witnesses-is the fastest growing confession, or religion, in the world. It is among the most practiced religions in many lands . . . and it is perhaps in first place when it comes to fervor, zeal, activism, ability to make proselytes." (g87 3/22 p. 6) - Emphasis added --DannyMuse 19:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's right, DannyMuse, it was in 2004 so it's not on the CD-ROM yet. I'll have to go home and look it up the old fashioned way. I remember being quite struck by the idea. cairoi 20:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 - Removed silly JW-slang joke.

Q: How encyclopedic is it to include the statement, "[It is] a practice sometimes jokingly referred to as "laundromat publishing""?

A: Not very!

If you'll look at the article history, the reason that was originally in there was to provide factual evidence for the fact that the magazines are distributed in large amounts at laundromats as a practice, after many Jehovah's Witnesses removed the unfavorable information (it kind of settled an edit war). The reference was later expanded into a reference of a joke by one of the Jehovah's Witnesses who watch this article to soften the blow of any unfavorable facts. I agree that, if it's a joke, it shouldn't be in there, but I think that it is good and worthwhile factual source for the information that large amounts of the magazine are often deposited at laundromats and bus terminals. Samrolken 05:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4 - (More to come ...)--DannyMuse 16:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work, Danny! Samrolken 04:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Samrolken: Thanks for the explanation. I did kinda' wonder why that joke was in there!!! It seems to have served its purpose and outlived its usefulness. That fact that some JWs do tend to "dump" (leave magazines) in public locations such as laundromats it still mentioned, even though it is generally discouraged. --DannyMuse 05:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments on most recent version

Ah hello, tis me back :) I've been invited back to give my opinions and contribute to the general discussion... I'd rather create a new section in the talk rather than just joining mid discussion. I've read over the article and in general I feel that it is fine up until the "Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency". Although I make no claims that the things said there are false, I do feel that it has little or nothing to do with The Watchtower itself. I feel, personally that this page should be used to describe what The Watchtower is and what it is meant to be used for. The teachings of Witnesses past and present should occupy a different page in my opinion. Zikar Jan 5th 05 | 02:09 AM GMT

Welcome back!!! I appreciate your comments, especially concerning the "Eschatology ..." section. In reference to your position that "The teachings of Witnesses past and present should occupy a different page" you will be interested to know that this is (more or less) brought out in the Changes in Doctrine section of the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses article. I look forward to your contributions! --DannyMuse 08:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to overlook cairoi's edit below, which are great, but I'll reply to DannyMuse's comments. I have known about those pages for a while and am generally happy with them and give fairly good detail. Which make me wonder even more why the "Eschatology" section is here in the Watchtower page, it just seems out of place altogether (even with cairoi's proposed edits). Just to expand on my opinion of removing it; although those quotes where more than likely in The Watchtower I see no reason to include them over any other quotes, as has been mentioned The Watchtower is used for information and to a degree communication, so it stands to reason it would contain things that are inaccurate whenever we change our views on something. However, again, this has little to do with The Watchtower itself but rather Witness belief in general, which is why maybe a link should be placed to the Changes in Doctrine page after the comments about The Watchtower being used for communicating changes. Zikar 18:26, 5th Jan 05 (GMT)

It is important to reflect fairly any existence of opinion about The Watchtower. That means if the opinion is significant or widely held, the encyclopedia should refer to it. The Eschatology section under discussion was apparently present to reflect a significant opinion that The Watchtower is willing to stick out its neck to claim certainty about predictions that repeatedly fail to materialize. In reworking the section, we can't simply remove the significant opinion (that would be bias). We have to somehow report the opinions in relation to their importance. Perhaps a single straightforward sentence that directs to other article(s) may suffice. Tom - Talk 00:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eschatology

I'd like to propose several balancing quotes which could be used in the Eschatology section if it is to be kept at all.

Several years before 1914, Russell had written "Chronology (time prophecies in general) was evidently not intended to give God's people accurate chronological information all the way down the path of the centuries."

According to the best chronological reckoning of which we are capable, it is approximately that time--whether it be October, 1914, or later. Without dogmatizing, we are looking for...the inauguration of Messiah's Kingdom in the world. (Watchtower 1913 10/15)

"It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time" (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963)

Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring about Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. (Watchtower 1968 5/1 pp272-273)

Jesus...emphasized...five times. "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows"...[so] we do not need to know the "day and hour" when God's coming destructive act will begin. (Watchtower 1974 6/15 pp 378-379)

"It is vital to remember not to set a date but eternity as our goal." (Watchtower 1974 6/15)

We do not know the exact time when God will bring the end. (Watchtower 1974, 10/15)

Jesus warned his followers against speculating about dates..."It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction." (Watchtower 1999 11/1)

I think that more complete quotes will help give a balanced view of what was written. Unfortunately my access does not go back much past the 50's.

"It did not take the brothers very long to find the chart...showing that 6000 years of man's existence end in 1975. Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. "The new book compels us to realize that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed," said a conventioner. (Watchtower 1966 10/15)

The Bible book of Revelation (chapters 20 and 21) reveals many of the good things that the thousand-year rule will bring. It also tells us that this millennium must be preceded immediately by the most destructive war in all human history. We can now see the political rulers or "kings of the entire inhabited earth" being gathered...for that War of all wars... (Watchtower 1974 7/1)

What...is the "Generation" that "will by no means pass away until all these things occur"? It does not refer to a period of time...but rather, it refers to...people living at the beginning of...events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. ... The fact that their number is dwindling [people born before 1914] is one more indication that "the conclusion of the system of things is" is moving fast toward its end. (Watchtower 1980 10/15 p 31)

cairoi 16:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If necessary, we can condense this whole section down to a mere sentence or two. But the concept is an important conflict that does need to be mentioned. Here are three proposals: Tom H. 21:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

George's reply to Tom's suggestions

Tom, thanks so much for your help.

The problem I see is one that Danny has brought up and seems to continue to occur across JW articles. This issue of escatology is one that should be dealt with in the "doctrines of" page. I would suggest moving this entire discussion there and possibly archiving it to another page here, notated thusly. The Watchtower is not the only source of education produced by JW's and to say that "The Watchtower" has taught this or that is clumsy wording. george 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour with Tom's reply and philosopy. I'd like to see a quick outline of the issue and a redirection to the Doctrines page. Perhaps we could note that some critics consider JW's dates to be doctrines and link from there. cairoi 21:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tom's suggestion 1 (a short and unbiased statement of the ongoing trouble about eschatology)

Many observers have been uncomfortable that the The Watchtower has long (or always) had an editorial perspective favorable to persistently postulating subsequent definite and proximate dates for the end of the present time commonly expected in Christianity. [That's a veiled way of saying that people often pounce on the "leapfrog" eschatological timelines posited in The Watchtower.] Tom H.

Tom's suggestion 2 (the JW perspective, followed by the critical view)

The editorial perspective of The Watchtower favors maintaining a sense of urgency among readers concerning the signs of Christ's coming and the end of the world. Accordingly, through its history, The Watchtower has forwarded many definite and proximate calculated eschatological dates based on biblical interpretation. These dates have routinely passed without fanfare. Many critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses find this tendency problematic. Tom H.

Tom's suggestion 3 (the critical view, followed by the JW perspective)

The Watchtower has long drawn criticism for its tendency to publish definite and proximate eschatological dates that routinely pass without fulfillment. [Hmm. What would be the JW perspective?] Tom H.

I guess JW's don't often think of these dates as definite. Take 1975 for instance. No where in JW literature was that identified as the end of the system; It is merely put forward as a calculated end of 6000 years from the creation of Adam. Some 'assumed' that would mean the end of the world though they were warned not to put their hope in that. Or 1914, Russell assumed it would mean an assention. He admitted he was wrong about that but JW's still believe that it marked the end of the gentile times. I don't really know background for 1874-5 or 1925. (Maybe someone else could step in) They seem to have been fizzers but may not have been presented as 'definite' dates. But the point for JW's is to live in expectation and the function of the Watchtower is stated in its subtitle: "Announcing Jehovah's Kindom" for which no-one cannot know the exact time. This kind of expectation time line creates a longing/sighing and crying/passion for a new world order. Interestingly the Latin word for watchtower is specula which implies keeping a lookout for a 'possible' but unpredictable event. So how would we put that into a frame work? cairoi 16:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cairoi, actually 1874 was not a date chosen by JW's it was a date that barbour and russell agreed on but proved unrealized. It was not an armgeddon date, but a date for the return of Christ. Rutherford thought that '25 would be the correct date. The rest of the supposed armageddon "predictions" are based on dubious information.

george 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks george, I wasn't at a place I could look the stuff up. Did you see why Rutherford thought '25 was signifigant? cairoi 21:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cairoi's suggestion

The Watchtower has long drawn criticism that it publishes definite dates for the end of the world. The Watchtower's subtitle, "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom," indicates it's interest in eschatology but Watchtower writers caution, "It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time." (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963)

Escatology Part II

I have taken the liberty of removing the escatology text and moving it here, per the discussion on this page. Some alternatives have been listed, the best of which would be to add this data to the Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page and discuss its' inclusion there.

regards, george 22:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency

The Watchtower has included various attempts to interpret prophecies of Armageddon, the end of the world and the coming new millenium. Though some past attempts have included hopeful dates, since early on there has been the caution that the exact time of the end of the world cannot be predicted. Watchtower writers hold that Armageddon is imminent and urge people to react immediately to this view.

A few more years will wind up the present order of things, and then the chastened world will stand face to face with the actual conditions of the established Kingdom of God. And yet the course of the Church is to be finished within the space of time that intervenes. (Watchtower p. 56, 1894)

We see no reason for doubting, therefore, that the Times of the Gentiles ended in October, 1914; and that a few more years will witness their utter collapse and the full establishment of God's kingdom in the hands of Messiah." (Watchtower Reprints, VI, Sept 1, 1916, p. 5950)

There will be no slip-up...Abraham should enter upon the actual possession of his promised inheritance in the year 1925. (Watchtower Oct. 15, 1917, p. 6157)

1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures...the Christian has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had (so far as the Scriptures reveal) upon which to base his faith in the coming deluge' (Watchtower April 1, 1923, p. 106)

Receiving the gift, [Rutherford's book, Children] the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon. (Watchtower Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288)

Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. 'The new book compels us to realise that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed,' said a conventioneer. (Watchtower 15/10/1966, p 629)

It also tells us that this millennium [of rule by Christ Jesus] must be preceded immediately by the most destructive war in all human history. We can now see the political rulers... being gathered... for that War of all wars.... (Watchtower, July 1, 1974, p 397)

If the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century (the year 2000), which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that "the conclusion of the system of things" is moving fast toward its end. (The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1980, p. 31)

Some of that "generation (of 1914)" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that! (The Watchtower, March 1, 1984 pp. 18-19)

Stated purpose

The stated purpose section began with

The stated purpose of The Watchtower is to exalt Jehovah God as Sovereign Lord of the universe, and encourage faith in Jesus Christ.

This sentence, without quotation marks, is POV. (It takes the point of view that God is named Jehovah, for example.) I notice that the same purpose is stated two paragraphs later, in the front-cover quotation. Hence, I boldly took out the first instance. Dbenbenn 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the comment was redundant, it makes sense to remove it. However it appears quite silly to call the quote of a magazine which states its' own purpose as POV. The magazine itself is definitely POV (duh!), but the quoting of it isn't, is it? So I boldly will leave it alone. george 03:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. The only problem I had was that it wasn't actually in quotes, as I indicated above. Dbenbenn 03:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe George was operating under the assumption that the introductory phrase "Stated purpose" acts to mark the quote so that there was no punctuation required. I personally feel that quotes or no quotes it doesn't matter. The statement is still clearly identified as a NPOV report of a POV assertion. So, it could stay as is or with quotes. You're both right. cairoi 17:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A philosophical note on what to include in articles

An issue that continually comes up, as georgem mentioned, is whether certain information should be on a particular page. As a practical concern, that question is often answered best by experience with the occurence of anonymous edits. Often you will notice that anons continually kick against what you are trying to do in an article. I have found, or decided, that in those cases, the best response is, "if you can't beat them, join them". To keep your own sanity, you have to find a way to express things that will satisfy the readers and not keep inviting counterproductive edits. For example, perhaps only time will tell how much this article needs to say about Watchtower Eschatology. I think it is wise to say just a little and include an inline link to the more explanatory, exploratory article. Tom H.

I support this idea. Any other comments on creating a new "Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses" page detailing the issue in detail, and linking to that? It would really keep us working on the Watchtower article from going off on a tangent. Samrolken 08:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice picture Georgem. cairoi 05:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits: Subheading 2: Deleted "activism for peace" phrase...

The word "activism" appears just once in the 2004 magazines, in the article "Should the Clergy Preach Politics?" The middle sectence of paragraph 3 reads: " "It was evangelical churchgoers who sometimes questioned the public activism of their clergy," said a Christian Century article on political theology." (w04 5/1 p.3)

Who actually writes "The Watchtower"?

The article doesn't answer this question. Who writes the articles, who decides what goes into them? -- 84.58.44.81 12:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most articles are anonymous (or at least to the point where the article writer is almost never credited) and I would assume that editing the Watchtower and Awake would be down to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society --Zikar 19:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zikar, you seem to know about this. Could you please explain in the article who has hands on editorial decision-making authority for the magazine and who has ultimate editorial responsibility? Tom Haws 21:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunitly I don't know exactly who edits it outside of just the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society so it may requre some further research. I'll back to you on this. --Zikar 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a writing commitee within the WBTS that oversees the research, editing, and development of the articles. The articles are mostly contributed by writing commitees within the branch offices worldwide, which are then checked by a team of editors for accuracy, grammar, spelling, etc, and then translated into the languages of publication by other teams. Beyond that, there are few specifics since, as Zikar mentioned, the names of the authors, editors, etc are never included in the final magazine. I do know that sometimes articles will be completed but then shelved for a later date of publication in favor of material that may be considered more relevant for the specific issue. However, it is evidently quite rare that a finished article ever gets totally denied from being printed. A brother I talked to who served on the writing commitee in the Brooklyn headquarters said that during his 15 or so years of service there he only saw one article ever not finally make it to print. I'm not sure how much of this information is relevant to the article, but it probably should include a little information on the anonymity of the writers of the magazine. -- uberpenguin 14:28, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Hi Uberpenguin, I have added a new section called Authorship based on what you have said as a starting point, since this is probably a common point of interest. Hope this works. boche 07:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wallkill, New York ?

The article says the magazine is published via the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Wallkill, New York.

Any additional info for that location ? Other sources put that society in Brooklin. Also, Wallkill leads to a disambig page. Flammifer 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Zip code is 12589, so it's Wallkill, Ulster County, New York. - Glenn L

NPOV?

I'd like to see neutral and complete coverage of everything on Wikipedia, and it seems therefore disturbing that the current version of the article has been "sanitized" of any critical comments, or anything that alludes to the many ongoing controversies regarding The Watchtower magazine. This causes a POV concern for me. Samrolken 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam, this is an encyclopedic website not advertising... --Zikar 10:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)