Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Talk page guidelines

• Please do not make disparaging remarks about individuals who do not agree with you.
• Please do not post long quotes of Jehovah's Witnesses publications here. If long quotes are necessary to support or counter a statement in the JW articles, create a subpage for the issue.

User 'missionary' and the Watchtower’s misquotes

To missionary. Your misquote from the Watchtower has nothing to do with the subject at hand, as it does not relate to JW policy or practice, but refers to the churches of Christendom, and does not quote anything about the subject of excommunication for questions or disbelieving the doctrines of men that have no scholarly backup at all. Linking to a long JW article that does not even touch the subject is just JW distracting propaganda. Not only that, the Watchtower has clearly misquoted the writer, plus the text has absolutely zero to do with the practises and double standards of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and so is irrelevant. I have posted the full paragraph quote that gives a quite different view to the Watchtower's misquote, a habit they love to do all the time. The bold text is the text they carefully missed out.

"Excommunication: II. It is the undoubted right of every society to exclude from its communion and benefits such among its members as reject or violate those regulations which have been established by general consent. In the exercise of this power the censures of the Christian church were chiefly directed against scandalous sinners, and particularly those who were guilty of murder, of fraud, or of incontinence; against the authors or the followers, of any heretical opinions which had been condemned by the judgment of the episcopal order; and against those unhappy persons who, whether from choice or from compulsion, had polluted themselves after their baptism by any act of idolatrous worship. The consequences of ex-communication were of temporal as well as a spiritual nature. The Christian against whom it was pronounced was deprived of any part in the oblations of the faithful. The ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved: he found himself a profane object of abhorrence to the persons whom he the most esteemed, or by whom he had been the most tenderly beloved; and as far as an expulsion from a respectable society could imprint on his character a mark of disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind. The situation of these unfortunate exiles was in itself very painful and melancholy; but, as it usually happens, their apprehensions far exceeded their sufferings. The benefits of the Christian communion were those of eternal life; nor could they erase from their minds the awful opinion that to those ecclesiastical governors by whom they were condemned the Deity had committed the keys of Hell and of Paradise. The heretics, indeed, who might be supported by the consciousness of their intentions, and by the flattering hope that they alone had discovered the true path of salvation, endeavoured to regain in their separate assemblies those comforts, temporal as well as spiritual, which they no longer derived from the great society of Christians. But almost all those who had reluctantly yielded to the power of vice or idolatry were sensible of their fallen condition, and anxiously desirous of being restored to the benefits of the Christian communion."

Full text is here, scroll down 75% to the subheading, Excommunication: http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap15.htm

As you can see, the actual quote has a different message to the Watchtower's. Again we see bogus misquotes from the writers of the JW Watchtower magazine, and now brought here as a misleading propaganda to dilute the actions of an organization. Please also note, justification or not was not an issue in regard to the expulsions, shunning and breach of Human Rights for a JW's 'thought crimes'. The Wikipedia paragraph is about double standards, not justification or not for this hypocrisy. This has all been debated above. I removed your link, as one, it was not an accurate quote of Edward Gibbon, therefore, propaganda. Two, because it has nothing to do with the breach of Humans Rights which the Wikipedia paragraph was about. Three, it's a justification, which is not what the Wikipedia paragraph is about, and justifications are POV. And four, the Watchtower article starts by referring to "who no longer wants to live by God's standards, or who refuses to do so" thus falsely linking all their non-biblical doctrines to "rebelling against God" if they are not accepted, and this against is POV propaganda and is also off topic. Central 12:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of shunning is a practice which Jehovah's Witnesses contend is based on Biblical precedent and this quotation is an independent source verifying the validity of this doctrine. It addresses human rights by speaking of "society as a whole" and the double standards the paragraph implies are subjective at best and the argument inserted shows the counter-point that this is not a violation of basic freedom of speech. The term "freedom of speech" itself of an exaggeration...does one have the freedom to cry "fire" in a movie theatre or state they are carrying a bomb onto a plane? A society determines what speech is freely expressed and any individual who of their free will joins a society that places certain restrictions on said speech must invariably be held accountable when they violate that implicit contract. Missionary 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Missionary. Did you read anything I posted, especially the four points I made? Do I need to go over them again? Why are you inserting off topic subject matter? You said: "shunning is a practice which Jehovah's Witnesses contend is based on Biblical precedent", you fail to see two major points of this: 1. Shunning for merely thinking a non-conforming thought has zero basis in scripture, especially when it's a thought that does not agree with a man-made non-scriptural teaching, and is clearly not biblical shunning. 2. The justification for excluding members is not the subject of this article, and is POV. Please stop sabotaging material by brining in off topic matters like shunning! It's irrelevant if the Governing Body thinks it's is ok or not, that facts are the Human Rights and freedoms of members are not given equal basis to the demanded same rights of the organization. Inserting long justifications (which are about other subjects, not merely thinking free thoughts) is off topic, and a less than covert attempt at subject diversion.

The Edward Gibbon quotes is talking about early Christianity, not the unique doctrines and practises of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and he also speaks of "major sins", he says nothing related to the thought control policies mentioned in the article, and that are practised by JWs. So, there again it's off topic. As for your last comment, it's a perfect example of hypocrisy in action. You state: "A society determines what speech is freely expressed and any individual who of their free will joins a society that places certain restrictions on said speech must invariably be held accountable when they violate that implicit contract." Hummm, so why don't Jehovah's witnesses accept government's decisions when they breach the rules of some governments? The Watch Tower Society does not accept any decision by governments that limit its power or freedoms, but it hypocritically demands the reverse of its members. When the Watch Tower has any restrictions placed on it, it screams "persecution", "breach of our basic Human rights", etc., and fights kicking and screaming all the way. When a member is crushed, slandered and has all their friends and family turned against them for just thinking a free thought, or not agreeing with a non-Biblical unique doctrine of JWs, and has their basic rights restricted, they are hypocritically told to just accept it, the very opposite of what the organization does as a group, and that is the gross and blatant hypocrisy that need to be pointed out, and that you are clearly trying to hide and bury under a heap of off topic ancient quotes that are not even about JWs, governments or the Governing Body. Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Central. Rest assured, I did read your argument and if I had not addressed it completely, my apologies. As to whether or not shunning is scripturally based, that is an issue best addressed in another section and there are two sides to that argument. Regarding the perceived double standard you seem focused on, you are comparing apples to oranges, and even if there is some correlation between the two, the sentences following the two quotations from Society publications in this paragraph assert an opinion without concrete facts. It goes without saying that some feel devastated after being shunned or having a shunned family member. It also goes without saying that some who were shunned appreciated this form of discpline, as illustrated by the number of individuals reinstated into the organization each year (which this paragraph fails to mention). It also goes without saying that family members and friends of those shunned are responsible adults capable of making their own decisions, and the vast majority of such individuals feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of worship.

Point one; the shunning issue is one you brought up, not me. I have removed all reference to it now. As for the rest about how people feel after they have been labelled, expelled, and family turned against them is not the point. The point is it happens, not is it good or bad. The good or bad is POV. You say: "vast majority of such individuals feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of worship", you fail to see the irony the vast majority of individual in a nation feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of their governments to restrict sects they feel are a danger, or for whatever reason, but do JWs and the organization accept the laws of the land they choose to live in? No. They immediately bemoan they are "persecuted". This is the point; apples are still apples, not oranges.

See the U.S. Supreme Court decision of February 1987, which confirmed the rights of religion and ruled there was not human rights violation at that time. Believe me, with the court's then liberal bias at that time, had there have been a violation they would have ruled against WT. Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Further, Central, I would like to point out that every disfellowshipped individual was first and foremost met by a series of elders who reviewed questions relating to the doctrines and principles of Jehovah's Witnesses which they feel are based on Biblical principles. And every single individual disfellowshipped takes the step to answer questions detailing these key issues prior to their being baptized. When they state they are identified as Jehovah's Witnesses on the occasion of their baptism, they make an implicit contract to follow those guidelines. At a later point, should they deviate from these guidelines, it is the perrogative of those administered with oversight to determine if the individual should be disfellowshipped.

They are the same rights and freedoms to not be slandered, labelled an antichrist, and have all their family and associate turned against them for not accepting non-biblical doctrines of a religion, and for having free thoughts, especially when a large section of JW dogma has zero scholarly back up. You make some highly inaccurate comments: "And every single individual disfellowshipped takes the step to answer questions detailing these key issues prior to their being baptized." Detailed? Far from it, they are not told of the massive and embarrassing background of the organization, its multitude of complex doctrine, many of which are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and no scholar backs up. They are not told they will be subject to slander, humiliation, hate and legal threats from the Watch Tower's legal department, for daring to not believe doctrines that have been found to have no biblical basis at all. This is the precise reason the organization are so terrified of literature like Raymond Franz's, as he puts all the information, good, bad and downright ugly on a plate, and lets the reader make an informed choice (note that 'informed choice'), that is a right also. That is not found with the organization and the Governing Body, as they proved in 1980 with their disfellowshipping long time members for merely having private conversions on 1914, two classes of Christians, and 144,000, doctrines that are unique to JWs, and have no scholarly back up at in scripture, but you have to accept them or else! Loyalty is everything, even when they know it's based on unscriptural man-made doctrines.Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, we're shifting away from the practice and delving into the semantics. Let's agree to disagree on scriptural basis relating to this practice, and simply agree that it is a practice some agree and are happy with, and others disagree and are angry with. Sound cool? Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why this is not analogous, Central, with governments is in so much as there is no implicit document when an individual is born into a country such as the United States. They automatically attain those rights including freedom of speech, however those freedoms are subject to the dictates of the administration presently in power at any one time and as any constitutional scholar worth their weight in salt will tell you, the freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom nor is freedom of religion. Should Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions fight for their rights? Absolutely. Should an individual about to be disfellowshipped appeal their case? That is without question their right. Witnesses are bound by scriptures as they view them in context with the situation. Governments are bound by laws as they view them in context with the situation. However, governments highest authority is the law of the land, religions acknowledge their highest authority as their own deity. As such, the two are not analogous in their approach with interpreting their laws. Missionary 00:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You sate: "freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom" who said it was? Why is it JWs cannot see anything that is not converted into all or nothing by them? Good or demonic? Black or white? It's not just about freedom of speech, its about Human Rights not to have hate and slander piled in you, or to have families broken up, and all in the name of loyalty to a publishing organization. You know well, the tiniest freedom restricted towards the Watch Tower organization is immediately deemed "persecution", they are even trying that line now in France due to them being prosecuted over their tax evasion status. You switch subject in your next sentence: "Should Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions fight for their rights? Absolutely. Should an individual about to be disfellowshipped appeal their case?" So, what happen to the individual's "rights"? Or was that a Freudian slip? They only get "appeals" to the unscriptural private kangaroo courts of a few imbecilic elders? Where is the court in the open as scriptures states? Nowhere! If a government tried to ban you from all your family and friends, tried to incite hate and contempt towards you on false charges, tried to justify it saying this is the law, you can leave the land, or shut up, would the Watch Tower organization just sit back, and say, fair cop, we will accept our lot and shut up? That is what they are asking of many members, especially those who disagree on subjects for conscience reasons due to the doctrines having no scriptural backup. You and other JWs appear so terribly blind to the hypocrisy of your organization. Rights are rights for all, not just the VIPs in the Governing Body of Jehovah's witnesses. The fact that those rights do not exist for the rank and file members is a serious and often devastating breach of basic rights that needs to be given some space without endless JWs surreptitiously sliding in false arguments to change the subject or just trash the entire paragraph as has been happening. Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, step back a moment...take a deep breathe. Now, as to the individual rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is over 6 million who would disagree with that assessment. But that said, everyone has their own opinion and are entitled to them. As to a Fruedian slip, there was none. Religions can appeal to governmental bodies, individuals can appeal to religious bodies. However, the guidelines each base their determinations are come from different sources. Again, apples to oranges, or bananas to kiwis if that makes things go down easier. :) Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The points are not about the Human rights of shunning, they are about the persecution, slander, and general abuse of Humans Rights and protocol, which directly contradict the same rights that the organization boldly demands from governments. (And please stop obsessing on the USA; it's not the only country in this world!) That Watchtower link (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm) is off topic, and is about labelling some woman, who disassociated herself, left the area and was shunned when he retuned years later. It has nothing to do with members being booted out for merely thinking independent thoughts, and then getting all their rights treated with contempt, along with all their friends and family turned against them with slanderous unjustified labels. Labels like they use in the article linking them to this woman. Did you notice how they start the article about her, then insert totally unrelated linked examples of sinners, and then link it back to her as if they all applied to her, and as if they were only following "biblical examples"! What a crock of s***, that link has nothing to do with the paragraph, and is being used as yet more straw man propaganda and is off topic.

That link is terrible propaganda, and just shows what mind-bending influence that organization has. One woman leaves of her own accord moves away for years, and is them lumped in the category of every sinner you can imagine! What did she do? What she some crack whore? Chop babies up and eat them? A serial killer? Well she might have well been one as she got the same label. See how the organization gradually builds up its massive list of slanderous labels and links them all to her, so the gullible undiscerning reader will swallow the poison, and think she is just the same, as she is mentioned at the beginning and end of the list, it's truly terrible reading (my satirical comment are in brackets): "God's fatherly discipline (God = Watchtower), but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation (OK, that is fine, but. . .) Most true Christians loyally support God (Watch Tower is God now), unrepentantly violate God's laws (WT rules), then she is deluged with the list of negatives that put here in the lowest of the low for just leaving: "teaching false doctrine, was unrepentantly immoral, fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioners, promotes a sect, shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation (she is implied again in the middle of all this hate), . .

. . . Hopefully, such a one will repent (repent of what?) Pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God, willful violators were executed (kill the bitch now?), to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing (yes the bitch deserves to die, how dare she leave the Kingdom Hall!), expelled for unrepentant sin (pray tell us, what did she do?) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views. (Ah we have it, she might actually disagree with them that's why she should die! of course) As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible (back to kill the bitch), his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him (yes, she's totally demonic and should be killed!!!!! How dare she leave! EVIL!!) Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them. (Yes parents, if your kids leave the org, you should kill them, and if the silly worldly law does not allow this, just do it in your mind!) Jehovah saw that Korah had to die (wow what did she do to be so hated?) Relatives who would not accept God's warning died with the rebels (that's it, stay away form this satanic devil woman or you will die too! Jeboba will burn you alive!) Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death (pity eh?, They seem awfully keen to do some killing) It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative (especially if they are dead!), Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man." (She is a gross sinner, how dare she walk away, now look what the bitch has incurred on herself, half a dozen death threats and sentences! Evil woman, she had it coming!) The Court Decision, You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman (by this time you won't give a damn about that EVIL Devil woman, she deserves to die, does she not? Shunning her is a merciful let off is it not?) PS. Do you know if the Watch Tower Society does contract killings? Central 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, you are bordering on the absurd now. "Contract killings"? Your emotions are diluting your argument as any objective third party reading the above would have to conclude. And that's understandable, it is an emotional topic and maybe (probably?) one you've had personal experience with. However, the fact remains that we do not know what act she committed that resulted in her being disfellowshipped or shunned, the entire crux of that supreme court decision (by all means pull the full court document rather than that clippet, it is definitely your right) is that in the context of her fighting under the premise you stated...her freedom of speech and/or religion...the Supreme Court of the U.S.A (which, for all its fault, is the template by which courts around the world over this past century have modeled themselves after...well except the European High Court in the past 6 years but that's another story) ruled in FAVOUR of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to...key word here...FREEDOM! Pure and simple. Retcon 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Missionary etc., Can you please just use one log on name as it's getting confusing trying to figure out who is saying what with your posts, next you will be arguing with yourself! As for your comment, the irony! I stated my comments were "satirical", go and look the word up. As for my emotion, I had a good laugh interjecting that Watchtower article; a little humour would do well on this board, especially when discussing such terrible and nasty material in the Watchtower's library. Here is my new brief reply format; any quotes will be in quotation marks:

• "However, the fact remains that we do not know what act she committed" Rubbish, go and read it, she just left and disassociated. Apparently a crime worthy of being "stoned to death" as the article repeatedly classes her?
• "is that in the context of her fighting under the premise you stated...her freedom of speech and/or religion" Again, incorrect. The premise has zero to do with freedom of speech, she left freely, moved away freely, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with internal pressure and persecution to conform, please stop bringing straw men arguments into this.

Well I can't speak for Retcon, but I can speak for myself...how about that? Your ascertain of "straw men" arguments has zero validity...the language in the suspect paragraph is very much argumentative and is causing this whole dialogue to persist further. It would be wise for you to check your agenda at the door at least until we can have a more level playing field. "Terrible and nasty material"...by whose critieria? See your whole premise is flawed and you miss the point on being objective in your appraisals. Certainly any of us could be accused of this...however its the degree to which we apply these arguments in an unreasoning manner. Certainly if the other camp screamed "apostates apostates run run" that would draw objection. However we should afford one another some dignity in addressing these issues. Missionary 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• "ruled in FAVOUR of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to...key word here...FREEDOM!" Again, this case has nothing to do with members being persecuted for free thoughts. She left for years, came back and got the cold shoulder. This case has nothing at all to do with Human Rights, or any of the persecution and abuse of members and forcing them to conform against their conscience to unsubstantiated and unscholarly doctrines. She left, she was not expelled. She was not disagreeing with doctrine; she didn't even live there for years. It's a completely unrelated case, and you have only inserted it for a diversion and a straw man, it's got nothing all to do with the article, and you know this. Just as the sins in the article have nothing to do with that woman, they are just inserted to infer guilt by association, yet another logical fallacy in the arsenal of deceit the WT uses.Central 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, I am honestly concerned about you now. I would suggest taking some time to regain your composure so that you can work as a force for academic clarity. - CobaltBlueTony 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, I'm perfectly fine Tony; I suggest you get a sense of humour.:-) Why are you taking satirical comments on an article with such seriousness? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Some poor woman gets every sin known to man put on her for just walking out the door, plus apparently, "deserves to die" repeated over and over, and you say I have a problem for putting it in a humorous light? What about the sick people who write that material? And the even sicker ones who believe it? I forgot the loving council of the Watch Tower. Here are a few more gems so you can see I'm not making this stuff up, please note the term "apostate" and "opposers of God" is used for any member who disagrees with JW dogma, even if it has no scholarly foundation:

". . .exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates [those who disagree] only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However," Watchtower, 15 Nov, 1952, p.703 (but we can see the desire to kill is very clear! Now put the knife down, and someone call the cops! And you thought the Muslim fanatics were bad with JIHAD!)

"Jesus encouraged his followers to love their enemies, but God's Word also says to "hate what is bad." When a person persists in a way of badness [any disagreement] after knowing what is right [being a JW], when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to hate what is bad a Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked" Watchtower 15 July 1961, p.420 (what ever happened to hate the sin, and love the person?)

And the crème de la crème of the Governing Body's luuve fest: "Haters of God and his people [anyone who merely disagree with the organization] are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God [those who disagree with WT dogma] are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. The earth will be rid of the wicked [anyone who disagree with JWs] and we shall not need to lift a finger to cause physical harm to come to them, for God will attend to that, but we must have a proper perspective of these enemies" -Watchtower 1 October 1952, P.599: (Can ya feel the luuuve brother? You can see the intense lust for killing and blood, only the law of the land holds back that knife that lusts to kill and hack to pieces anyone who merely disagree with JW dogma and is lumped into the "haters of God section". Christian mercy? No way! says the WT. We all know how the organization would react if the above sections of text had been written and directed at JWs by some government: "Persecution", "abuse of ourHuman Rights", "incitement to violence and prejudice" etc. Central 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the humor in any of this. And, scarecrow, you've brought an army of straw men with you, dancing gleefully at the chance to further twist, malign, and decontextualize old old OLD literature. I suppose in your world everyone goes to heaven because anything wrong they've done is all God's fault anyway.

Please, stick to relevant comments, because I can't tell if there's anything relevant to actually edting this article here at all. - CobaltBlueTony 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tony. The quotes are there to demonstrate a mentality in the organization, one that is dangerous and fundamentalist, and is even worse now than it was then. The quotes demonstrate a total disregard for the rights of other human beings based on the premise that they might disagree with the organization on doctrines that many times have zero scholarly approval. The fact that such hate, slander and desire for death and destruction is demonstrated to any who disagrees with Watch Tower dogma is a perfect exempt of the double standards of the organization, and it's expendable views towards any human who does not toe the line and conform even in their own free thoughts. All of this hate, and judgments is cleverly cloaked in the guise that it's all scriptural; the fact that many of the Governing Body's teachings are nowhere to be found in the first century is not give the slightest consideration. Loyalty is the all, and to breach this, you become an expendable nobody, birdseed for the crows at Armageddon. These are all accurate examples of the mentality that permeates the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, and leads to terrible and callous abuses of member's Human Rights, and even constricts their private thoughts.Central 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a partial quote, not a misquote. The author of the quote is speaking of primitive Christianity -- Christianity as it appeared originally, not Christendom or Jehovah's Witnesses per se. The quote is relevant to part of the topic. Since Jehovah's Witnesses' pursuit of human rights with established governments and their conduct towards their own members within their organization has been so inexorably bound by your edits and maintained within the government subheading, the Witnesses' reference to the conduct of the early Christians by means of this reference material is also inexorably linked, even as the conduct of fist-century Christians directly affected their interactions with the Roman government, the main topic of the reference material quoted.

Jehovah's Witnesses "conduct towards their own members" is not as rosy as you might try to assert. Members are given very little latitude for their thoughts, constantly being told what is or isn't a matter for their own conscience. Many elderly Witnesses are largely ignored in many congregations, especially if confined to nursing homes. Members are made to feel guilty about not doing enough in the 'ministry', and though there is no plate passed around, there are often comments from the platform reminding of the need to provide funds. Homosexuals among Witnesses are made to feel immense guilt and shame with very little actual support or advice from their 'elders'. I personally know of a 'brother' being 'counselled' by the 'elders' with 'watchtowers' from the 1960s for going 'witnessing' alone with an elderly 'sister' as if they might be sneaking off for a lovers' tryst. That is not respect or good conduct towards members. I am not saying that most Witnesses are not trying to be good people, but much of the way JW members are often treated is indeed insulting and degrading.--Jeffro77 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, can you say that again in plain English? The conduct of Early Christians has zilch to do with JWs and modern governments. Here again we see the gross arrogance of the organization that thinks it's God. If you can show me in the Bible where Christians are to slander, expel, and turn everyone against another Christian who merely disagrees in thought about issues that have not come from Jesus or God, but the minds of men, then I will happily let the link stand. And that quote, was a misquote, it was deliberately cut to omit the qualifier of serious sins, not some woman (as in the link) who decided to just leave! Talk about misapplied quotes!Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly cite the conduct, writings, and actions of first-century Christians as the basis for their interpretations of Biblical instructions meant for Christians. This reference, being a reliable resource and one directly quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses, should stay. If this is accepted, then both points should be moved to the section dealing with excommunication, and not with the government section, since in every other aspect the topics of Jehovah's Witnesses and goverments, and Jehovah's Witnesses and excommunication, are unique enough to warrant remaining separate subtopics within this article.

I would ask Konrad to act as an arbitor as he seems to stand on a much more neutral platform than either of us. - CobaltBlueTony 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly cite the conduct, writings, and actions of first-century Christians as the basis for their interpretations of Biblical instructions meant for Christians", yes and the Japanese drink a lot of green tea, but what does that have to do with the internal hypocritical stance on basic rights? Did you really say this next quote? "This reference, being a reliable resource", how can it be reliable, when its been hacked up to read a different way to what Edward Gibbon's full paragraph says? The original material should stay in the government's section, as it's all about the double standards of how JWs disregard governments, and demands rights, but demand the reverse of their members. This hypocritical dichotomy should be clearly elucidated. As for Edward Gibbon's writings, and the Watchtower link, they are off topic, and should go, as they do not address the subject, and are just a bad justification, which is also off topic, and has zero to do with those expelled for thought crimes. Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "This hypocritical dichotomy should be clearly elucidated." This statement reflect 100% your opinion, and does not have any research to back this up. Please find a resource which equates practices of a religion within its own sphere on influence as being tantamount to human rights violations. First you say that Witnesses' own practice of shunning (which follows excommunication) violates human rights. Then you attempt to end the discussion on the matter by simply claiming that the two are unrelated. Since you've linked them so inexorably, I'd say you have a problem. Find academically sound references which equate shunning and human rights violations, and/or associates Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of shunning with human rights violations. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You make a comment: "This statement reflect 100% your opinion", how can it be just my opinion, when its backed up in all the organization's literature, with two blatant quotes that are on the page! The standards of the organization are grossly hypocritical, they are not reasonable. If hate is ok to incite against anyone who disagree with you, then that rule should be put on you [as a group] also. You and the organization say you follow Bible guidelines, so where is the practise of treating others like you would like to be treated? Where do the scriptures give the right to persecute individuals because they do not accept the doctrines of a New York publishing corporation and its many less than biblical teachings that have zero scholarly backup, like 1914, two groups of Christians, them being chosen by Jesus in 1919, etc. etc., etc? All this rubbish about it being Christian is bogus, and a smoke screen, as you know many of the Watch Tower's doctrines are grossly subjective and have no scholarly acceptance at all, persecuting those who do not accept them is not remotely like the first century Christians, and its verging on blasphemy to attribute the persecution and abuse of rights the Watch Tower organization and Governing Body merit out as the same as first century Christians, and you know it. Missionary inserted misquote was another example of the length the organization goes to in its deceit. The quote was cut in two, and all the qualifiers were removed, and subtly linked to Watch Tower dogma, that is not in the original quote or in the Bible for many of these practises. Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, in my opinion, a major concern that editors on both sides seem more concerned with presenting their views than writing a quality encyclopedic article.

• This is not the place to discuss the validity of JWs doctrine. Please do not state that the Bible supports shunning or that it does not support shunning as a fact. These are opinions, nothing more.
• The section is about JWs and their relations with governments. It should not be a discussion of the human rights issues of shunning. If that is to be included in the main article, create a section called Human rights or the like, and cover the issue there.
• In addition, shunning cannot be stated as a violation of human rights. JWs view it as within human rights, and opponents view it as a violation.
• When discussing a particular point, feel free to cite what JWs believe, but when stating what anyone else believes, make sure it is relevant. From my understanding Edward Gibbon was not discussing shunning of Jehovah's Witnesses, so if he is to be quoted at all, it needs to be clear that he is not discussing how JWs do it.

Please guys, let's try to assume a bit more faith in each other and work on improving the article, not ensuring that our view is included. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Konrad, just a quick reply to some of your comments: You said: "This is not the place to discuss the validity of JWs doctrine", I agree 100 percent, please let them know this. "It should not be a discussion of the human rights issues of shunning", agreed, this was a straw man brought in by JWs. The Human Rights are general, about free thought, and beliefs without being persecuted. "shunning cannot be stated as a violation of human rights", but freedom of thought is a basic Human Right, and that is removed from JWs with the thread of slander, expulsion, hate and destruction of family and friends with the mud slinging labels of "antichrist, rebelling against God", and even thinly veiled death threats if they do not conform and view the organization like God. As for Edward Gibbon, they didn't even quote him accurately, and as you said, it has nothing to do with JWs, who didn't even exist when that book was published. Regards Central 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, that paragraph is slanted heavily with implications that there is no freedom of thought within the organization, with the only claims references relating to procedures relating to disfellowshipping. You state that the article should avoid shunning, so then why are the articles relating to shunning there to begin with? Oh wait, it says disfellowshipping. Same difference. It's agreed by at least 3 JWs and Konrad and even by yourself that the shunning topic should be avoided...so those quotations and the commentary within which it is framed should also be removed. If it remains then you need to produce the full picture...pulling out of the air disfellowshipping in relationship to JWs and Govts to support a faulty proposition is pure and simple flawed logic. And if outside sources besides WT doctrine are quoted then certainly it should be presented from all aspects, not simply the narrow view presented thus far from the anti-df camp. Also, it is a GOVERNMENT AND JW section, and suddenly that SUPREME COURT OF THE _____ USA is not applicable...HUH??? How governments view this should definitely be considered especially in relationship to "freedoms". Retcon 18:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Retcon/Missionary. You don't want to let go of your straw man do you? "that the article should avoid shunning" I removed any shunning reference as you, or whoever, obsessed on it as a way to sabotage the page, now it's gone you are still on about it! Excommunication is not the same as shunning. Shunning is one of many consequences that comes after; please get your facts straight. The only references are JW references, so you have no complaint with them; they set the reality not me. As for the court case, you need to read all the other posts, it's total off topic because that woman was in a completely different situation, so please don't come here pretending to be someone else trying to start it up again. Central 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL this is quite amusing...your definition of straw man is flawed at best. Simply re-read the article and reflect on its definite slant in its ascertion. One side of the argument is presented...that's it nothing more. Although Tony and Konrad seem to be addressing this far better than myself so I'll let them further attempt to reign in this discussion. Missionary 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unwieldy

The section on the relationship to governments is getting completely unwieldy (as is the discussion above.) The long paragraph (which I won't quote) is turning into a point-counterpoint-counterpoint-counterpoint-ad-nauseum debate rather than anything informative. Isn't there some way to note that the practice of shunning is controversial, and leave it at that? CarbonCopy (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It still must be related to governments, and I don't see that as useful in a summary section, but rather, noted in the section about shunning or governemtns. However, I think the point trying to be made would be be served under the shunning section. - CobaltBlueTony 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't think the shunning/disfellowship discussion warrants more than a brief mention in the governments section (to the effect that some critics find the public stand of the religion on religious freedom and their practice of shunning to be inconsistent), and a wikilink to the more extensive discussion in Practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses. As it stands now, that whol section has terrible reading flow. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why this obsession on shunning? It only mentioned it once in the whole article! Oh yeah, silly me, this is another straw man excuse to mess up the whole paragraph! If you read the paragraph as it was, it is clearly about "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech", the shunning is one minor point, until Missionary deliberately brought in a straw man to mess it all up and change the subject. The contradiction in rights is the purpose of the main paragraph, not any specific emphasis on shunning, but a general abuse of the Human Rights and freedoms of individuals who do not accept fully the doctrines of men, even in their thoughts. Missionary's paragraph should be removed, and put in another section about just shunning. (But it would have to have a footnote about its misquote and inappropriate illustrations) Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The "obsession" stems from your insistence on mentioning it in the government section. Please detach your opinions from your method of editing. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, I concur with Tony's assessment that this contentious point was initially inserted as an opinion that shunning was tantamount to a violation of human rights. My insertion of Gibbon's quotation was to show the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to human rights within the sphere of rights within a religious organization. Removal of both the Franz and Gibbon points and simply stating this is viewed by some as a violation and others as a nonissue would suffice, although I have another concern relating to sources for the viewpoints in context with governments exclusively. (see above). Missionary 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was fighting to keep the simple two-sentence or so version of the paragraph, the Witness contingent here whined. Now, they're whining that it's too long. I bet that two-line paragraph isn't looking so bad now, is it. That's the price of Witness groupthink, they end up with something that even they don't like but at least they thought they were getting their way.

P.S. Don't reply to this bitching at me, like I know you're going to do anyway. I was the one fighting for the simple paragraph. Your complaints about it are what have led to the current state of affairs. Bitch at yourselves. You've got your little offsite secret Yahoo society. You'd think you all would have your crap together better.Tommstein 08:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I think a dispute tag belongs on this paragraph until the debate resolves, and have so tagged it. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is use of the term "Cult" appropriate and in keeping with the purpose of WP?

This whole "cult" issue has been addressed at length several times in connection with this article. I encourage anyone interested to review the thread in detail at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 9. For your convenience I'll repeat some of the more salient points here now:

Interestingly, the website, Religious Movements: Jehovah's Witnesses (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jwitness.html), had this to say about cults:

Cult or Sect: Negative sentiments are typically implied when the concepts "cult" and "sect" are employed in popular discourse. Since the Religious Movements Homepage seeks to promote religious tolerance and appreciation of the positive benefits of pluralism and religious diversity in human cultures, we encourage the use of alternative concepts that do not carry implicit negative stereotypes. For a more detailed discussion of both scholarly and popular usage of the concepts "cult" and "sect," please visit our Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" page, where you will find additional links to related issues. (Emphasis added)

Also, Timothy Miller, of the University of Kansas, states in his essay, Religious Movements in the United States: An Informal Introduction:

“Cults” are usually defined by anticultists by lists of attributes they possess: they have charismatic leaders, they want your money, they demand high levels of involvement, they expect members to conform to certain behavioral patterns, and so forth. But such attributes are perfectly capable of belonging to groups that few would consider “cultic”—Catholic religious orders, for example, or many evangelical Protestant churches. If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of “nigger”— it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.

Thus academic students of nonmainstream religions generally quit using “cult” as a descriptive term. (Emphasis added) Given that, why would anyone insist on including such perjorative material of questionable academic merit? Something to think about. --DannyMuse 06:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Take it up with the publisher. You don't get to pick and censor what criticism you receive, nor to declare that said criticism shall not appear in titles.Tommstein 06:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm your zealous endeavors would better be spent in pursuit of something you positively endeavor and advocate, rather than a topic that you obviously have a adverse view for which obviously effects NPOV's in your contributions towards this topic. (UTC)

Yeah, it takes some powerful hardcore bias to remove your registration spam link, whatever it's supposed to be to, which I neither know nor especially care.Tommstein 08:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Riddle me this then (to coine your own terminology), according to Dictionary.com the definition of spam is: "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail". First off, this wasn't an e-mail so please get your terminology straight. Second, it is not of a commercial nature as the website hosts no revenue streams and is purely a discussion board. Third, it wasn't indiscriminately placed within multiple lists, it was discriminately placed on this site as a positive resource. And last of all, fourth, if you do not especially care, then why do you persist in removing it? I fail to grasp your perplexing logic. Retcon 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, surely you weren't seriously expecting me to sit here and dick around with you about the definition and usage of "spam", or even the reasons why people edit Wikipedia, were you?Tommstein 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility and NPOV

Please everyone, try to be a little more civil in your comments to each other. DO NOT WRITE PASSAGES IN CAPITALS. That is shouting, and unnecessary. This is not the place to make perjorative remarks about JWs, the WTS or any of their practices, or accuse JWs of being brainwashed, deceptive, or whatever. This is neither the place defend your religion. Please keep discussion on topic by discussing the article itself.

On another note, in response to some comments made by a few people, please remember that everyone is biased to some degree. Whether you are a happy JW, disgruntled JW, happy ex-JW, disgruntled ex-JW, or never been a JW you are welcome to make edits on the JW pages. No one should tell other editors to leave due to bias. What matters is whether our edits themselves reflect the bias we inherently have.

I hope this helps in cooling down the atmosphere around here, which unfortunately has become rather heated. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Peace to all. Konrad's words are absolutely correct. We are all biased, and need to subordinate that bias to the greater good of communicating and writing together. Tom Haws 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds very nice and rosy, but it's not ever likely to come to pass when we have editors who constantly drop belittling remarks towards JWs, their beliefs, and the capabilities and knowledge of other editors. Frankly I don't believe some of the people here are even capable of making a point without including some form of sarcasm or contempt or trying to engage other editors in a fight over an unrelated matter. I've largely adopted the opinion that this article will always be a strange-reading ugly duckling, and that it will always give rise to endless futile heated debates on the talk page. Personally I've had enough of it; I'm taking this page off my watch list and am not going to edit it any more. It's just not worth the substantial time and effort required to keep it out of the hands of those who wish it to be an expose on the evils of JWs' beliefs and organization. I'm much happier contributing to other areas of Wikipedia where it doesn't take an exhaustive fight to make the tiniest edits. I hope this won't be seen by any as my giving up on collaborative editing, but it is in fact my giving up on collaborative editing of a topic whose editors hold such extremely polar views and biases. I hope none of you will fault me for investing what little time I have to devote to Wikipedia in more productive endeavors on the site. For the rest of you: have fun, don't hurt yourselves (or each other), and even though I don't believe my saying this will make a difference, try to be nice. -- uberpenguin 07:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it will always be a hot topic, but I'm optimistic that we can work through it. Hope that you decide to come back uberpenguin, but if you think you'll accomplish more on other articles, then good on you. But come back some time; hopefully we'll surprise you with our harmonious consensus in the future. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility is a noble goal for a conversation, but polar argument is to be expected in any religious forum. It's hard to have any religious and philosophical argument without stirring up emotion because of what is at stake in the argument. Socrates pointed out that people have to be careful about where his soul is entrusted. Whenever the interlocuter has a significant existential investment in the debate, and has not learned the difficult method of vigorous self-restraint, the argument spirals out of control. For anyone who reads this and intends to add anything to the page, please move the argument forward towards consensus. We all realize the difficulty of argument, and how "deep" everyone's subjectivity actually goes. In fact, this is NOT about objectivity, it's about mutually creating a respectable and far-sighted interpretation of the witness phenomena. Something people can respect when they search for JW's on wikipedia. Add to the debate! Thank you. -- 70.254.86.31 --John

I'm not sure if I misunderstand or you've got your facts wrong. Wikipedia isn't meant to be respectful; it is meant to be objective. The articles are meant to explain the facts about JWs, positive and negative, without regard for whether a member would view that as disrespectful. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't we just finish discussing your allegations that all non-Witnesses are disgruntled and out to get the poor old little Witnesses like what, 48 hours ago?Tommstein 08:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Uberpenguin, I sympathize with your sentiment and as has been mentioned, this will be a polarizing topic undoubtedly. I'd simply recommend showing courtesy even to the discourtious, and if you find belittling remarks from certain individuals, simply don't dignify them with a response. That is usually the best tactic towards silencing the beligerent. Hope we see your further contributions. Missionary 07:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at this, this is incredible, a Witness that just shows up here for the first time jumps in to comfort and support of a fellow Witness regarding discussions he knows nothing about. And the Witnesses actually complain when I imply that they just might be partisan. Yeah, I must have been crazy.Tommstein 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity? Scientific Realism and Wiki

Objective? Just the mere use of the term "objective" is scientistically biased. The use of the term presupposes that scientific realism is true, and that we all are in direct contact with mind-independant reality. Scientific realism itself is a problematical proposition. Going back to the objective test...well Good. If this is supposed to be objective, then we must take the "expose the truth about" approach to the subject matter...even if this contradicts the "fair and balanced" approach below. If this is really objective, then we will post anything as long as it is true and "defines and describes" the JW movement. You want to go down the "objective" route, then the criteria for posting should be "if it is true then it is posted" even if the analysis is one-sided. Good, now there we are where we should be in the dialectic....the objective analysis "won't fly" as I knew from the beginning, this isn't about being "objective" in the literal sense, maybe metaphorically. Therefore, my "respectful" criteria is much better suited to dealing with issues of NPOV. Unless you want to go back to the presuppositions of scientific realism...

Additionally, no single person's belief set is identical to the set of all true propositions. Since none of us can "step outside" our beliefs and compare them with reality--or the set of true beliefs--and therefore make our minds know reality, all we can do is present the way things appear to us in a respectful way. This cannot be about literal objectivity-if it were, then we would not be having this argument in the first place. --John

Your definition of objectivity sounds good to me, and probably a lot of others. It's the Witness contingent here that is obsessed with removing facts they find inconvenient; I personally don't recall ever removing any facts simply because they painted Witnesses in a good light. Maybe I should start, to throw balance on their fact-removal shenanigans, and to see how they like what they do. As to the rest of your stuff, yes, I'm sure we're all in the Matrix or something. Now take it to the Philosophy page or somewhere else that's not here.Tommstein 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF? I had to laugh when I read your post John. "Scientistically based"? ;) Look up objective: "Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal." As in, we present the facts, regardless of any respect or disrespect. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

lol...good one! It blindsided me...lol. I said scientistically "biased" not "based." I dare you to prove the legitimancy of scientific realism. The empiricist program has failed. So i don't know why it's not a given that no statement is objectively valid; nothing is "objective." Empiricism has crashed and burned in the twentieth century. Anyway, it's nearly hopeless trying to convince non-believers. Dogmatic "objectivists" are just as dogmatic as true believers. So, i probably should take this argument somewhere else. ;) --John

Please do. If we can't objectively assume that we're reading what we're reading, then we're all screwed. I find it interesting that you talk about "non-believers" and "true believers" of your philosophy though, kind of like it's just another religion....Tommstein 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no difference between religion and science, that's the point--true humanism begins this way, anyway, i do accept everything you said--we must be objective on this forum--thanks for responding ;).

TOC box

Why was the TOC box reverted? It was cleaner on the right. - Tεxτurε 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it as it was on the left, and shunted the text up. Why would you say it looks "cleaner" on the right? Virtually no pages have it on the right. I admit the large gap that was next to it was a bit of a waste of space, but I have shunted the text up now, and left the introduction paragraph at the top, as it's looks better with a full width as an introduction, rather than squeezed down the side of the content box. Anyone else want to comment? Central 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good as you have it now, Central. I say keep it like it is now. - CobaltBlueTony 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WOW, this must be a world's first, something we agree on, pop that champagne! Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I didn't see that you had moved the text up. - Tεxτurε 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased editing will ruin these articles

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

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

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

Proposal for compromise

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

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

Tony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other topics for inclusion

• In which countries are JW's most active?
• There have been quite a number of SCOTUS cases involving JW's - especially with regard to the Pledge of Allegiance - SCOTUS even reversed itself
• Is there no way at all for JW's to accept evolutionary theory?
• --JimWae 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• United States, probably followed by Mexico and Brazil, if I remember correctly, and someone had better check that I do before adding that.
• That's already in there. The final two-sentence or so paragraph intended to NPOVify the own-horn-tooting over the demands for rights was itself called POV and a thousand other things by Witnesses that didn't want it there and... well, just scroll up.
• They currently don't accept it at all. As to whether it would be theoretically possible one day, who knows. I don't see how it would be impossible. No change of beliefs has ever been too radical for this organization before, but there's probably not going to be anything making them change this, like, say, the end of the world not coming after all.Tommstein 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

JimWae, Jehovah's Witnesses recognize and accept the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution occurs within species, or general types of animals, and does not create a brand new species; only subspecies. (The classification of living things has itself some diverse expressions; the Genesis account merely uses the word "kinds" of animals.) They see the diversity and adaptability of living things as evidence of an intelligent designer. However, macroevolution posits that humans came from lower primates, which came from lower mammals, which came from other kinds of creatures altogether, such as amphibians, reptiles, birds, and so forth. Jehovah's Witnesses accept only the Genesis account, which states that God created the cretures according to their kinds, and man lastly and separately. I hope this explanations helps.- CobaltBlueTony 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, do you have a reference that states that JWs accept microevolution but not macroevolution? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot think of a publication off of the top of my head that specifically uses those terms, and I do not have access to a WT library CD at this time. Unless someone else responds, I will try to hunt down some research myself relatively soon. However, if you review the sky-blue colored Creation book, you'll note, when discussing the pepper moths, that variations within species are acknowledged as real and observable, but not as evidence of mutation creating a new species (or 'kind') of creature. I will do my best to research more information for resources. - CobaltBlueTony 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My spelling change

First, I wish to say that I didn't know that "judgement" was actually the spelling used anywhere, and I thought it was just a misspelling. But it's definitely good to know. As to Wikipedia guidelines on this, there are the following:

Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#Should_I_use_American_English_or_British_English.3F
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)

From the last one, it seems that "judgment" is actually the preferred spelling in Canada, India, and Ireland, besides the United States. From the "Different spellings - different meanings" section of the same link, it seems that in Australia "judgment" would be more likely to be used in this specific case too. But, there's probably two ways to view this. One is viewing Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'American' topic, since they started in the United States, their controlling corporations are there, they're the biggest there, etc. In that case, the guidelines are to use American spelling. The other possibility is to not consider them an 'American' topic, in which case we can use whatever we want, as long as we're uniform in the article. In that case, we should use whichever version of English is most widely-used in the article, whichever it may be. It occurs to me, though, that quotes from Watch Tower Society publications seem to use American English, especially older ones before they became nearly as widespread as they are now, so that can either make us see the topic as an 'American' topic or be used on its own to settle on American spellings for the rest of the article. What says everyone else?Tommstein 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Reasoning book is quite clear that they're not an American religion (but that's a whole other issue). Based on what you have said about the Witnesses' American heritage, I suppose spelling may be appropriate - even though it just looks wrong. That said, technically in English, if a 'g' is followed by a consonant (except for the pseudo-vowel "y"), it is hard (or silent, as in 'paradigm' or 'gnome'), except for when it used as part of the "gh" diphthong. (It is also always hard at the end of a word, except when used as part of the diphthong "ng" or when it stands as a letter on its own. There is a larger, more complicated set of rules for when 'g' is followed by a vowel.) Therefore the best syntactic spelling of the word is "judgement".--Jeffro77 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have no idea how "judgement" ever became "judgment", if that's the direction the word evolved in. In fact, I used to always spell it "judgement", since it's the only way that actually makes sense, until I discovered the horrible truth one day during a spellcheck or something.Tommstein 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It came about in American English the same way as 'color', 'honor', and America's obesity crisis - laziness.--Jeffro77 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I take it you don't like Americans, seeing as you just stereotyped them as fat and lazy. Did you inform the Canadians, Indians, Irish, and Australians that they're lazy too? Or the rest of the English-speaking world, since apparently "judgment" is also a secondary spelling elsewhere?Tommstein 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a matter of public record that America has a large proportion of overweight people. Actually Australia (where I am) has a problem with chronic obesity too. I was only joking in any case. However, the simple rules of syntax do stipulate that 'judgement' is a more correct spelling. Peace.--Jeffro77 10:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To assume that I don't like Americans because I state that there is an obesity problem there is unjustified. The problem does exist, and the problem exists, both there and here, largely due to a sedentary lifestyle. To say I don't like Americans because some people there are overweight is tantamount to saying I don't like overweight people, which 1) is not true, and 2) over-simplifies the issues associated with obesity.--Jeffro77 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your remark was not exactly a simple factual statement that Americans have a documented obesity problem, it was something you threw in on the way to also calling them lazy. I suppose you also have a good reason for calling Americans lazy.Tommstein 11:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a cliché employing dry wit. It was intended only as a parody, not any viewpoint that was to be taken seriously. I wasn't making a political statement about Americans per se. It could just as well have been said about any stereotypical group, and there was no intent to offend.--Jeffro77 12:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm no fan of American English (a great oxymoron), I'd say the articles should use it, as JW is an American religion that has spread overseas. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Biographies of individual Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses"

If you look under the section entitled "Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses", you'll notice that, in addition to the two actual websites, there's probably like 10 links to subpages within the websites, which aren't themselves "Official websites" at all. Is it really necessary to link to every page of the websites individually? Isn't that the purpose of linking to the sites, instead of passing every individual page off as its own "official website"?Tommstein 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll conceed that point, yes they are subsections to a main website. I'll remove them now. Retcon 04:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seasons in the Sun

Just found this description of the book:

http://www.tvgonline.org/read_paper_library.htm

Why would this person's life-story be significant for the main Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses? The blurb here makes it seem that her "acceptance of the faith of JWs" was incidental to this story. Retcon, can you steer us to any other reviews of this book? Thanks! DTBrown

Since there's no reply from Retcon yet, any other views if this book is worthy to include or not? Dtbrown 04:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion, it does touch on some of those points mentioned albeit from a non-glossy first-person perspective. However, weighted against the other publications, it honestly isn't as authoritative Missionary 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please post concise, ontopic replies

So we don't have to archive content that is only a week old just to keep the talk to a reasonable size, please consider the size of your posts before pressing Save. Short, concise and ontopic posts are easier to read and are easier to reply to. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously. I tried to read the "User 'missionary' and the Watchtower’s misquotes" section, and gave it a good start, but, uh, my time on earth is limited.Tommstein 08:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Policy for New Arrivals

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

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

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

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

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