Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oa3p1K

Contents

[edit] A VfD

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

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

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

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

[edit] Focus

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

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

[edit] "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" recommendation

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

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

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

Aid to Bible Understanding should definitely be highlighted as one of the Society's most important publications. Insight is based upon it, and its (very brief) article basically says as much. Insight is only notable as the version of Aid currently-in-use. All the pertinent information on the development of the text is in the Aid article. --PopeFauveXXIII 08:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JW-related articles

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

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

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

[edit] Oppositional Views

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

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

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

[edit] Notes and comments

Moved from Project page.

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

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

[edit] We need a project plan

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

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

[edit] Proposed structure

This a proposal for an eventual structure to work towards:

About Jehovah's Witnesses

Literature

Jehovah's Witnesses-related

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

[edit] Comments

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses template.

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

[edit] Bible Student movement and JW history

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

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

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

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses: Bible Chronology

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Usage conventions proposals

[edit] Use of "the Society"

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

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

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

[edit] Articles on Specific Publications

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

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

[edit] Belief restriction

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

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

Certainly these articles should include expert scholars as source, but as far as I know, there are none. Certainly there are many ex-Witnesses who make claims, but none (even Raymond Franz) would be an "expert scholar". Do you know of any? Their works would be highly appreciated! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
James Penton, professor emeritus of history at the University of Lethbridge, xJW and author of two books on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. --PopeFauveXXIII 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

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

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

[edit] Vote for JW structure

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

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

I propose the following:

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

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

[edit] link on main page

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

[edit] Fiery Furnace

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

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

[edit] Please comment on the following

Please take a look at the following thread:

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


[edit] About Editing Guidelines (1)

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

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

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

[edit] About Editing Guidelines (2)

Sorry folks, but I'm not happy about the present 'Editing Guidelines':
Guideline 1. says "State, "The Watchtower says..." rather than, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe...". This avoids difficulties in different interpretations of what the WT is saying; the WT statement can be interpreted by the reader, rather than by editors."

To say "The Watchtower says" implies that The Watchtower is the arbiter of, and basis for, the beliefs of JWs. However, is not the Watchtower simply an instrument of JWs for spreading/sharing their beliefs, sharing them with each other and to the wider world? Surely we can take it 'as read' that the WT, and other official publications of JWs, all plainly state the beliefs of JWs? It is the responsibility of editors, when providing encyclopedic information, to ensure that the wording of their entries accurately reflect the beliefs and practises of the religion being written about. To this end, WT publications are an excellent source of information. In fact WT publications would be the only source of information worth researching if we want to know the beliefs of JWs.

See your point, but the problem then is that Jehovah's Witnesses (individuals) receive doctrine from Jehovah's Witnesses (organisation).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, thaat implication isn't specifically made. Unfortunately, as the Watchtower is one of the major sources of information, it gets cited a lot. That doesn't mean that it's the final word. Also, most of our direct references in wikipedia tend to follow that format. Also, if it is linked to at least once per article, it will hopefully be clear that the link will verify it is only one organ of the JWs. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
REPLY 1
I see your point too. I think this matter is a challenge for editors. As an example of my concerns, compare, for example, Wiki 'Roman Catholic Church'. Under 'beliefs' it does not say "The Pope's encyclical says..", it says "Catholics believe....." followed by references to source material or links. The editing style in Wiki R.C.Ch. is varied, e.g. "Following Jesus admonition to ...whatever, (+scripture quotation) Catholics (do whatever...)." Not "The Pope says...", or "The Catechism says....". But rather, the article states the beliefs of the adherents of the RCCh and then cites (cites, not quotes) relevant portions of the source. Occasionally it quotes directly from the source, but generally the article is written using the (NPOV) wording of the editor, not by quoting verbatim from source material.
It is for these reasons and those expressed in my opening post that I feel that Editing Guideline 1 is too prescriptive and could/should be improved. Unfortunately, however, I regret that I have only been able to indicate a potential problem area, and have not been able to offer a possible solution.--JW-somewhere (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem there is that many of the traditions are of dubious provenance, so it's hard to say exactly what their origins are. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of belief, many people who have become JWs have done so because they already hold certain bible beliefs, and they are subsequently extremely pleased to find a group of people, the JWs, who also hold to the same tenets and uphold the same standards as they do.

Coming back to the WT. Is it really possible that there could be "different interpretations of what the WT is saying.."? I've been reading WT publications for over 35 years, and, as to beliefs and practices, have never had any difficulty in understanding the doctrines and points being made, nor have any of my fellow worshippers.

Anything is possible, particularly if one is primarily interested in finding a basis for their own, sometimes unusual, ideas, and we unfortunately have many editors who engage in that sort of behavior regarding any number of subjects, not just religious ones. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And why should we cite the WT as the authority for our beliefs? For example, I know the WT says the Bible is God's Word, but I don't believe that the Bible is God's word because the WT says so! I believe the Bible is God's Word because (a) the bible itself provides me convincing evidence that it is, and (b) the Bible itself says that it is God's Word! So, when listing and expounding on our beliefs, surely Bible citations are entirely appropriate.

Do you believe that the tree in Daniel chapter 4 (an arbitrary example) represents gentile rule merely because the bible says so? There are many JW interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the bible whose authority can only be cited as that of the Watchtower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro.Thanks for comment. See 'Reply 2' below.--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On this matter of bible quotations, I believe that there is no need to make a point of using only the wording of the NWT. After all, all bibles teach the same basic truths. I appreciate that there are some differences between versions, but, in most cases, none of these make any difference as to the message of the scriptures. In the few places where there appears to be significant variances between what JWs believe and what other bibles say, then we could make a point of explaining how we have come to our conclusions, conclusions which may differ from that of other religious groups.

The guidelines don't actually say what you say they do. They say that quotes from the JW bible should be where reasonable and possible. This makes sense because (1) other versions might not say the same thing and (2) it makes sense to quote the official source of that church, in this case their translation. This isn't saying that other translations can't be used, just that there is an advantage to using the NWT. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So, whilst I appreciate the motive for guideline No.1, I think it has been poorly conceived.

Guideline No 2. says,"Use the newest available reference when stating what JWs currently believe."
First of all, this seems to contradict what Guideline 1 says, i.e. that editors should NOT say, 'JWs believe..'
Secondly, it would be hoped that all references to the beliefs of JWs accurately reflect...what they believe! It goes without saying that the encyclopedic entry will contain current, up-to-date information. The Catholic Church has significantly changed it's views on certain matters over the years. But we don't read 'Roman Catholics currently believe..."! So, my point is, the guideline should be re-worded, perhaps by some admonition to editors, to simply remind them to ensure that they are not publishing information that is 'out of date'. To any non-JW who is reading this, I would like to state that, yes, JWs HAVE had to review their understanding of various scriptures from time to time (Prov 4:18?). Often, if you are a reader of WT publications, you will notice that they might say 'it would seem that..' on certain points. If, later, further consideration leads to a different viewpoint, JWs publish this revision in their literature, making clear the reasons why a modification or change would seem more appropriate. But 'changes' are not made lightly, without long and careful consideration of the matter. In some cases, we 'just don't know' how a certain scripture was intended to be understood. Often, in time, the matter becomes clearer. But if it doesn't, there is nothing more to add, if we don't know, we don't know! JWs are not, and do not claim to be, 'inspired prophets' like those of Bible times. Much of our research is done by keeping up-to-date with what other (non-JW) bible scholars have determined. If the case in point has merit, the brothers will make their own extensive enquiries, and come to a common understanding. If an 'understanding' needs to be revised as a result of this prayerful consideration of 'new' information, their new findings are circulated together with deatials of all references and reasonings.

The purpose of the statement about using the most recent sources is I believe to indicate that older, now perhaps discredited statements, should not be included as being what is necessarily believed today. Certainly, I would agree that there's no particular need to change a quote from a book two months old with another quote one week old, but the basically reasoning above is still valid. That doesn't mean the phrasing couldn't be changed a little, though. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A further point I would like to make is that, already JWs produce extensive, and well founded, information of their beliefs. The information is available on the internet and in their publications, freely available to all. If any readers require further clarification, JWs will happily call and discuss one-to-one any bible matter the genuine enquirer wishes to raise. The meetings of JWs are also quite free and open to the public. No-one need to be in any doubt as to what JWs believe and why. This being so, the need to publish extensive information on this Wiki website is quite un-necessary.

There is no need to put anything here, including such central articles as England. However, there are regular questions from people regarding the accuracy of "current" statements from any body as to whether they are denying earlier statements. Being able to provide what is, hopefully, regarded as neutral, outside comment is basically what this site is built on. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Should people only consult Catholic sources about Catholic beliefs, therefore making all other sources about the Catholic Church (including JW views thereof) unnecessary? How about AlQaeda? Obviously consulting only one organisation about that organisation's beliefs will present a glowing biased viewpoint of that organisation. Such reasoning is not only incorrect, but also dangerous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro. I appreciate your concerns. See Reply 3 (to be written soon!)--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion:
Yes, have guidelines. Perhaps a JW who has had experience and been trained in academic writing might like, with all due respect to the editor(s) who composed the ones we currently have, to consider rewriting the guidelines, taking into account the points to which I have drawn attention. Regards --JW-somewhere (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


It should be noted that guidelines are not intended to be absolute. The guidelines really only exist to help ensure that the articles are well written. There can be and always are cases in wikipedia when guidelines aren't followed for some good reason. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

REPLY 2.
Jeffro.I appreciate your comment and I see your point about WT references. Yes, of course, WT references are necessary, or more specifically, references to publications by Jehovah’s Witnesses (via WTB&TS) are essential on certain beliefs. But not all beliefs require a WTBTS reference. To expand:-
1. The beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses fall, for the purpose of this discussion, into, say, three different types:-
(i) beliefs which are commonly held beliefs, i.e. that are common to and widely held by all/most Christian believers who accept the bible as the word of God.
(ii) beliefs that derive from an understanding of scripture that differs from ‘mainstream’ Christianity, but which nevertheless, can be clearly and simply substantiated by reference to specific scriptures and related scriptures. Obviously these understandings will differ from those of some other faiths, each of which may have come to different understandings of the doctrine, depending on their view of the inter-relationships (or not!) of various scriptures, and
(iii) beliefs that are extrapolations/implications derived from type (i) and type (ii) beliefs.
2. Every faith can be described as a belief system. JWs are no different. Therefore, recognising this belief system enables an editor to see which beliefs:-
(a) for type (i), can be communicated simply, by statement and reference, or
(b) for type (ii), need more explanation, supported by internal and external references, or
(c) for type (iii), that are more complicated, and can only be satisfactorily explained by extensive exegesis.

Agree on types (i) and (ii). Type (iii) beliefs should use JW references, but some would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and many would be beyond the scope of the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Beliefs in this latter category are the most difficult to deal with within the scope of an entry in an encyclopaedia. The beliefs of the RCCh about Mary, for example, are summarised in one paragraph, but with no or hardly any explanation for the position of the RCCh on this doctrine. There are referenced words, but most of these provide no further enlightenment. There are also one or two referenced key words. These link to expanded explanations, elsewhere in Wiki, which give a more in-depth coverage of the subject.

Indeed. Those kind of topics are the most difficult to present subjectively because they are intrinsically POV, and almost always unproven, and usually unprovable (such as many of the RCCh beliefs about Mary).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

4. As the Wiki article RCCh is only a synopsis of Catholic belief, some (more complicated?) subjects are not even mentioned. e.g. Papal Infallibility. There is not even any direct ‘See Also’ link from the main article to this subject as far as I can see (perhaps I should add one!). In the same way, an article about JWs beliefs should be succinct and appropriately substantiated, and ‘deeper’ subjects should be dealt with outside the main article, if need be.

The amount of data on the Roman Catholic Church in wikipedia is such that the main article can only present the essential points. Also, for what little it's worth, as a RCC myself, I know that papal infallibility has only ever been exorcised in a real sense twice. On that basis, it is far from being a central issue, and can reasonably be placed in a subarticle. The same thing could be done with the JWs, if the amount of content ever approached that of the RCC. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

5.1 Interestingly the RCCh article makes extensive use of references to literature where the reader can verify, or do their own research on, more complicated matters. The RCCh footnotes have links to mainly Catholic sources, but also to scriptures, to lists of booksellers for the book referred to, or to Google’s ISBN search engine.
On ‘complicated’ doctrine, the RCCh article(s) refer the reader to a number of books which discuss the matter in question. Similarly the Wiki JW page could, perhaps, have extensive referenced words, and extensive footnotes showing: scriptures; references/links to the WTBTs website pages; JWs publications, and external sources.
5.2 On many Catholic practices the RCCh just relates what Catholics do, not why they do them. I think JWs would not want to emulate this editing form of presentation.

The RCC article is only at GA, so it isn't the best representative anyway, as it itself has a few problems keeping it from FA level. Also, it's documented history is a lot longer. And, again, there are numerous subarticles about the RCC which go into greater detail on the subjects, which could be done here as well if the amount of content ever got to that level. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be more objective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

6.1 So different beliefs require different presentations. Returning now to the tree of Daniel 4. Verse 22 onwards of that chapter tells us what/who the tree represents. This part is easy, because we have the ‘dream tree’, and the ‘interpretation’ in the same chapter. This is inarguable. But what was the prophetic fulfilment of that dream? That’s another matter which would need more research. Having established the historic fulfilment, are there any further implications? Are there any scriptural lessons to be learnt from the matter? And does the prophecy have more than one fulfilment, e.g. a minor fulfilment and a major fulfilment? If so, what and how and when and who etc etc? Does the dream provide any prophetic information about the Kingdom of God or about the Kingdom of the Messiah? Now we see that such matters require extensive exegesis which, to me, would seem to be outside the scope of a main article about JWs beliefs. Given that many different bible scholars have studied these verses over the years, and each, no doubt have made different extrapolations and come to different conclusions, then perhaps a separate Wiki article on Nebuchadnezzar’s (Nebuchadnezzar II) dream tree would be appropriate. There isn’t one. Perhaps you’d like to start one, as a sub-page to the Wiki article about this King? You could include a summary of the explanation given on the ‘TeachingHearts’ website (not JWs), . In due course, JWs may wish to add their particular view and to include suitable citations and cross-references.

It was an arbitrary example to demonstrate that "There are many JW interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the bible whose authority can only be cited as that of the Watchtower Society." The question, "But what was the prophetic fulfilment of that dream?" also demonstrates that point, as there is nothing in the bible account to indicate - or even imply - that there was any prophetic fulfillment beyond what is explicitly stated. Several of the other questions are also assumptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

7.1 Taking your up your arbitrary example of the tree of Daniel 4, I think you will agree that the matter of Bible prophecy is a deep subject. There are various ways of studying this subject, as you will be aware. How far should Wiki go in highlighting the different understandings of all the numerous prophecies found in the Bible? Should it even start the task? If people want to know, would Wiki be the best starting point, or would the enquirer be better advised to do their own research and/or to avail themselves of the abundance of literature and bible study assistance provided by various religious groups?

It would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia to exhaustively analyse all interpretations of all biblical prophecies. However, certain information therefrom is needed where it is central to explaining a religion's fundamental doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agreed. There have been so many different interpretations of so many different scriptures and other sources over the years that any attempt to do so at this early date, when even the main articles on most of the books of the Bible are still unimpressive, that any attempt to elaborate such interpretations at length would almost certainly wind up violating the official policy of [{WP:Undue weight]] by laying too much emphasis on a few interpretations. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

7.2 Summary. Different beliefs require different treatment. An encyclopaedia editor must exercise discernment and discretion, especially when dealing with religion and other ‘matters of the heart’.--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, discernment can be seen as being functionally equivalent to POV by anyone other than the "discerner" himself, and thus be seen to violate policy. Also, in all honesty, there is no reason for "discretion" per se, unless what is being discussed is a less than creditable source. Any verifiable information from reliable sources can be included. However, I think you would agree that the main purpose at this point would be to expand and improve the most central articles, rather than creating a large number of less essential articles. In time, that will certainly change. Also, given the comparatively few number of active editors this project has, it would be unreasonable to expect content regarding it to be as thorough as content regarding RCs, because of the far greater number of editors interested and active in that subject. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational Template

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

[edit] Banned participants

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

I think being up to date on who is actively involved is a good idea. Since those two are not allowed to be involved anymore, removal is a good idea. Duffer 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Better to keep struck through to serve as indicator IMO, as I see these user's comments in plenty of discussion pages? Joseph C 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge unnecessary

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

[edit] Bible study

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

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

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

[edit] Proposed article

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

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

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

[edit] Um, question?

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

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

[edit] Request

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

So here is my request:

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

The man of lawlessness revealed

Thanks

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

[edit] Death of Jesus Article - Witness View

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

[edit] Category:Religious leaders

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

[edit] Categories

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

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrines and Practices merger

A while ago a merged Doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page was created. I recently nominated it for deletion, as it had had only a handful of edits since it had been made and normal editing had continued on the articles which were to be merged into it. The result was KEEP, so I think that all the relevant information should be merged into the single article, then the other pages should be redirected after the "what links here" for each of the two pages have been changed. BenC7 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. (I'm a little biased though.) So, lets get to the hard work of merging it. I think I'll definitely work on tackling this very soon. And of course, if someone else gets to it before me, all the better. joshbuddy, talk 08:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have just noticed that there is an almost identical page, albeit with some extra sections: Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is more detailed in some parts, although that is not necessarily a good thing (considering its length). I think we need to come to a decision about which one is going to be used. Personally I think 'beliefs' is better than 'doctrines' for an article title. BenC7 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I trust your best judgment. I agree that beliefs is better than doctrines. joshbuddy, talk 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The beliefs-and-practices one seems to be a bit more refined; we can use that one as a starting point. BenC7 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses pages

The above pages have been redirected to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Archives of these pages are kept as sub-pages of the Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses page, and may be of use to some editors. They can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. --BenC7 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons

There are presently 279 reexamine.info links on the English language Wikipedia spread across a range of Jehovah's Witnesses-related articles. Perhaps 80 to 100 are in the Early Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses article which has now been nominated for deletion:

See this discussion on the talk page for the WikiMedia Foundation's spam blacklist:

The Foundation has apparently received a complaint that we are linking to a site that infringes others' copyrights. Our External Links Guideline and our Copyright Policy spell out that we want to avoid such links. With good reason, Wikipedia is extremely sensitive to copyright issues -- Wikipedia has very shallow pockets and the legal costs of a few big lawsuits could really damage it financially even if the Wikimedia Foundation eventually won.

reexamine.info links have been proposed for blacklisting. (Note: it's called the "spam blacklist" but links are added to it for other reasons as well: personal attack sites, copyright issues, etc.) Once blacklisted, pages containing that link can no longer be edited until the link is removed. Blacklisting normally occurs within a few days of a request, so reexamine.info could be blacklisted any time.

Link removal is about copyright in this case and should not be construed as Wikipedia taking sides in any controversy between the parties involved.

I'm not an admin just a volunteer (among others) who monitors spam blacklist discussions and then cleans up blacklisted links. Since link deletions are always touchy when they involve matters of faith, I wanted to post this note here. I'm just the messenger and not in charge.

I expect that some of these links are not important while others may be important citations for some articles, so this is not just a copyright issue -- it also raises 200+ separate editorial decisions to make as to whether and how to replace these links.

I suggest that WP:WPJW volunteers begin acting on these links now before blacklisting. Should the links be blacklisted before then and you find a page impossible to edit, just delete the link and then you can save the page.

If you want me to help with link removal, let me know. --A. B. (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I second the above. The links need to be removed as a matter of some urgency. I have some AWB regular expressions which will allow me to do that if that would help. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • At the moment the site is "Closed for Maintenance" and none of the links work. DGG 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for explaining what is going on and I understand the need to remove the links. Is there any way to find out who lodged the complaint? Dtbrown 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The owner of one of the copyright works linked. Not, I think, the editorial staff of Watchtower, although it could be one acting under their own private identity. Sorry, I can't give the name, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've removed quite a few of the links. Is there a way to get an updated list of links needing to be removed? Dtbrown 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Click this link to get the current list:
I've had some major stuff come up off-Wikipedia, so I'm sorry I'm not available to help. --A. B. (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article "Jehovah" revived

Hi, I have revived the article "Jehovah" which had been redirected to Tetragrammaton. I suggest it be made part of wikiproject Jehovahs witnesses. Ice9Tea 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

done. PopeFauveXXIII 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox and Link to Religious Wikipedians Category

I have created a userbox for people who wish to identify themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have also linked it into the Wikipedians by Religion category, for decent indexing and to aid in finding users with the same belief, as it now lists 'Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians' in Category:Wikipedians by religion:

{{User:Joseph_C/Userboxes/User_JW}}

You can see what it look like Here.

I have since noticed a different userbox using the Tetragrammaton. No competition was intended. I had not realized there was one in circulation until I found this WikiProject page! (after creating my userbox) ~ Joseph C 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 83:18 for deletion

Psalm 83:18 is nominated for deletion. This is an important psalm to Jehovah's Witnesses, so maybe you may be interested in saving it. Abbott75 ☺ 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What "stories" of the Bible qualify for separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses AfD

Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of its directory and promotional nature. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses if you are interested in taking part in this debate.KTo288 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses and governments

I have proposed a merger of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments with Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses or Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties. Please express your opinions at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. --Richard 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


May I _ _ _ be a member of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our Kingdom Ministry

Plz create Our Kingdom Ministry. This article in other languages:

Alexander Moritz (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not think an article entitled 'Our Kingdom Ministry' should be created. OKS is an 'in-house' publication printed by JW's exclusively for JWs. It is simply an outline of the JWs ministry training program. It is not distributed to the public. It is of no use or benefit to the general public, except, perhaps, to critics of JWs who like to read something bad into all that JWs say and do. The subject 'Our Kingdom Ministry' is of no interest at all to the world at large. So let's not create an encyclopedic article about it!

However, I note that some countries have produced a brief article about the OKS in their respective country's Wiki. If we could have an English translation of these articles, those involved in the UK JWs project could consider whether or not we would like to emulate or respectfully refrain. Regards--JW-somewhere (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that, if the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, there's no reason the content, possibly as a separate article, shouldn't be created. Evidently, it does meet notability criteria, so something could/should probably be added about the subject somewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John. Thank you for your views. Having read the Notability guidelines, I'm not sure that Our Kingdom Ministry actually meets the criteria. The fact that other language editions of Google have articles about OKS does not establish a precedent. Do foreign language 'Wikis' have identical policies and guidelines as the English edition? Given that policies and guidelines evolve in each country, I doubt that a simultaneous translation of these policies is made available to foreign language Wiki editors.
Can anyone else add to this 'editorial' discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of a separate article about the JWs internal 'newsletter', the OKS? Your views please. --JW-somewhere (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I think this project is POV. I think this project based on critics view about Jehovah's Witnesses. For example:

This project recomended Watchtower instead of Jehovah's Witnesses as religious group, but this disrespect on perpose that Watch Tower is one of religious corporation of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is not used as religious corporation in some countries, like Russia and East Europian.
This project forbits Biblical quatations and recomend to quate it as New World Translation. I think this based on critics view that Jehovah's Witnesses doctorine only stand on NWT. I think JW doctorine don't.
Forthermore, why can critics use Biblical quatations to express thir views and JWs not? I think this is unfair.

125.193.23.145 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above is entirely accurate. Certainly, for the purposes of the JW's, quoting the NWT makes sense, considering that is, basically, more or less, their "official" version, and so it would make sense to quote that version in an article about the JW or in presenting their view of religious matters. It is however true that the JWs do not at this point have a "global director", like the Roman Catholics have the Pope, and that the Russian JWs probably do consider themselves as "full" JWs, even if not as "recognized" ones. The same thing can be said for several Americans who count themselves as "Catholics", like the American Catholic Church. I do agree that the article could stand improvement in some areas, and that the project can also bear new members. Certainly, content on the "separated" "unofficial" members overseas would be welcome, if you can provide reliable sources for that information. And, clearly, anyone in wikipedia is "allowed" to write however they see fit, provided they follow extant rules. Also, please note that quoting the Watchtower is an "Editing Guideline", emphasis on guideline, and actually conforms to wikipedia policy in citing the specific sources used as per WP:CITE. Your statement that the project "Forbids" other sources is not substantiated by the text. It would clearly be inaccurate to say "JWs say ..." unless it could be proven every JW who ever addressed the subject said that. Naming a published sourcr of statements as the source is much less contentious. Clearly, there are examples of individuals who might claim to be JWs who disagree with some JW teachings. Such people exist in every faith. However, unless it can be shown that their beliefs are themselves inherently notable, there's no good reason to say that it should be presented. If you can provide sources to verify your contentions that the beliefs of the JWs are based on things other than the Watchtower and those publications upon which it is based, and can verify that with reliable sources, I believe that there would then be just cause to discuss changing the content of the project page, and maybe several articles as well. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I say. Jehovah's Witnesses in Rusia and East European Countries are not separeted from other members in other area. It is what I say that Watch Tower Bible and Tract Socity is not used among Rosian and East European Witnesses. I mean Watch Tower Society is registerd in many countries, but not in some countries. Furthermore, Watch Tower is not religious group name of Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean Watch Tower is only one of legal organizations Jehovah's Witnesses uses. Their religious group name is "Jehovah's Witnesses", not "Watch Tower Society". Then Wikipedia should say "Jehovah's Witnesses say..." instead of "Watch Tower Society say...". If you think about former-Witnesses, I should say they are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and that they infringe of their trademark. 125.193.23.145 (talk)
If the published source is the Watchtower, then it would be most appropriate to say that ""The Watchtower says..." because that is the source being used. In this case, what is being referred to isn't "Jehovah's Witnesses", which is at best a difficult to defend and define term in this sense, but the name of the specific source being used. Clearly, if some other source were being used, then it would make no sense whatsoever to say "The Watchtower says..." But, in those instances when that is the source, it makes sense to point out the source directly. And the fact that the Watchtower is, to a degree, one of the official spokesmen of the JWs gives it some legitimacy. One could argue that maybe "The Watchtower, an official agency of the JWs, says ..." but that would basically be redundant phrasing, because I think most people familiar with the JWs will know of the Watchtower's status. This is not saying other sources couldn't be used as well, but we always recommend identifying the specific source as clearly as possible. Regarding copyright infringement by "departed" Witnesses, that's not a question I think we would necessarily be concerned with, and is at best a minor one anyway. We might describe them as schismatic or something similar, but if a reliable source identified them as a separatist JW movement, then we could and probably should as well. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations

Edit dispute at Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. User:GermanWriter insists it is not relevant that JW members were never informed of UN affiliation. Other editors please comment on Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators for the Christianity projects

I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing

I was wondering if it would be possible to have the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement removed from this list of article-we prefer not to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.25.127 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)