Talk:Watchtower Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Strike-through text

[edit] Some ground rules

I think we need to establish some rules here, based on experience.

This page I propose is NOT to be about religious doctrine. THere is already enough pages.

There are a great deal of a broader sociological influence, such as the advancement in non-blood medical procedures which do not invlove full blood but of certain blood fractions in transfusions.

Paving the way for the right for citizens not to have to salute the flag, not participate in group religious activities etc.

THese among a few.

Add-ponder 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ground rules were already established

Sorry Add-ponder, you can not make up rules to suit you. Any article must define the subject in the heading but your article did not do that, anywhere within it. What it stated was "This page cites references defining the Watchtower Movement". That is unencyclopedic. The article itself must define what the Watchtower Movement actually is. So I have redirected it to Jehovah's witnesses. I originally redirected to The Watchtower but this is probably better. It is interesting you say the article is not about religious doctrine. No-one suggested it is, but your message above here most certainly is. Moriori 06:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In defence

Moriori, If someone didn't set this rule the page will not stay on the subject of the watchtower movement. This subject can easily attract religious dogma as experience shows.

How can this Stub Page get expanded if a redirect is slapped on within hours of being created. Isn't the whole idea of a stub a basis to build on.

I believe I did make a succinct stub description of what the Watchtower Movement is.

The page is not about religious doctrine, yet within in minutes of the first creation it was deleted and redirected to a page full of what most would describe as 'religious', I would call that as someone making it 'religious'. By what 'message above' do you refer to when you say I have 'stated religious doctrine'? Add-ponder 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Add-ponder, did you actually read what I wrote? An article itself must define its subject. An article is not simply a vehicle to direct readers outside Wiki to see the definition and allied information. Contrary to your claim, you did not "make a succinct stub description of what the Watchtower Movement is". Let me quote from it -- The Watchtower Movement ........ (although predominantly religious) .....etc. Then it says This page cites references defining the Watchtower Movement. Right. The article itself did not define anything. Regarding your query re "stated religious doctrine", check your first post on this page which allies WM to sociological influence which among other things paves the way for citizens to not have to....participate in group religious activities etc.

Add-ponder, if you believe you can create an article about this movement, adequately defining it and demonstrating where it is headquartered, leadership officers etc etc etc, then please do so. But you must include citations/refs. It would be better for you to create much of the article on your talk page, and check it over, before you recreate it. This isn't saying that stubs aren't allowed, just that stubs themselves must define their subject, or they're sure to be zapped/redirected. I trust you can now see why I redirected your stub. Cheers. Moriori 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moriori The way you have jumped on this page and reacted so quickly appears somewhat alarming. The stub page seems to be snatched away before anyone can expand it.

The Subject is: The Watchtower Movement. Not the organsiation of the same name based in Brooklyn. They are known as Jehovah Witnesses. THis is not what it;s about.

A Movement does NOT require a HQ, leadership, mailing address, no more than the Gospel Music, Dadaism or the CB radio movement does. Add-ponder 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a movement that is NOT or CAN NOT be defined IN an article has no place in Wikipedia. Also, neither the references nor external links you provided can be accessed to get some sort of definition. Furthermore, although you say above the "......page I propose is NOT to be about religious doctrine", one of the refs you give is "Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction By Stephen Hunt". Furthermore, you say the movement is not (part of) Jehovahs's Witness. Google seems to think the opposite. If the Watchtower Movement that Google is finding is not your Watchtower Movement, then ergo, yours is not notable. I can't see why you found it alarming that I "jumped on this page and reacted so quickly". People patrol new pages all the time. Every new page is checked out within minutes of being posted. Most are tagged in some way. Some are deleted. Some are redirected, as this was. If you cannot actually define all of or some of the who-what-where-when-why-how components, and you say it can't be redirected to Jehovah's Witnesses, then the article cannot survive. Moriori 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

point taken re posting check/ tag process. I've looked at the google links. There is some ambiguity going on here with the term Watchtower Movement I've now noticed. There is a broad movement due to the watchtower organisation, such as civil rights/humanities but not directly controlled by the Brooklyn based organisation, that is what the article is supposed to reflect. I didn't realise that the Watchtower Movement term has been used rather like the word 'gay' has, by articles mostly critical of the parts of the movement the Brooklyn organisation has identified itself with. (And rather like Robert Jay Lifton describes PsychoHistory discipline, unaware that Asimov had previously used the word in a fictitious subject, thus killing the discipline as a serious science). Add-ponder 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much irrelevancy. Please address the following, which you just ignored --"If you cannot actually define all of or some of the who-what-where-when-why-how components, and you say it can't be redirected to Jehovah's Witnesses, then the article cannot survive." If you cannot satisfactorily addresss this, the article will be deleted. Moriori 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Via a Google search for WM, I've taken a few sample items mentioned on those pages, of sociological contribution to mainstream society by the movement. These items are cited in scholarly texts. On searching the website of WT organisation proper i.e. JW Media, and of other official websites, including Wikipedia, NO such mention of the item appears. Examples: The WM being the largest contributor to fight cases before the UN and The European Court of Human Rights has brought freedom of all Minority Faith Groups. Over 50 cases in the United States documented. Another example: A part of the movement is actively campaigning to increase clarification on the availabilty of alternative medical treatment and subsequent ruling in Bulgaria. (The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood). Another part of the wider WM is harmonising the legal policy of religious organisations which retain confidential records of past sex offenders. (Silent Lambs)

The catalyst which causes the social change throughout the world under the wider WM is probably due to demographic movement, that is the continual stream of individuals leaving the Watchtower religion go to work in the media and other positions of organisational management and social influence throughout the world. Within the WT organisation, 'Rationalism' involves a qualitatively new way of thinking concerned with innate ideas, independent of experience, the WM were at one time the leaders of this in contrast with the rest of the world. Philosophically speaking, bringing rationalism into mainstream society has beneficial effect in the ordering of work and in social life in general. On the flip side, communities operating on rational precepts can't easily accommodate individual creativity.

Add-ponder 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)