Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 48
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Reports are not "required"
Certain editors[1][2] insist on the wording "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are required to provide a monthly report"; the documented fact is that no such "requirement" exists. There is no punishment for failing to submit a report; frankly, their "encouragement" and "instruction" to submit reports quite persuasively argue against the idea that it is a requirement. Here are three discussions of the matter I could find...
- "Do You Contribute to an Accurate Report?", Our Kingdom Ministry, December 2002, page 8, "Jehovah’s organization today instructs us to report our field service activity each month. ...If any are forgetful about reporting their activity, [an elder] can provide appropriate reminders and encouragement. Submitting our field service reports promptly contributes to a report that accurately reflects what was accomplished in the field. Will you do your part by promptly reporting your activity each month?"
- "Your Service Meetings", Our Kingdom Ministry, October 1974, page 2, "All can be guided by the instruction to report “time spent in the activity of Kingdom-preaching... Report all the time you conscientiously feel was used in the preaching work. The amount you report in comparison with others is not important. (Gal. 6:4) The important thing is that the love in your heart has moved you to share your faith with others. (Luke 6:45) What we report should give us joy and not pangs of conscience. Our concern should be about results accomplished and not reports made about it."
- Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, page 81, "Getting better acquainted with the new publisher and showing a personal interest in what he has accomplished can have a fine influence on the individual. It may move him to make even greater efforts to serve Jehovah and to turn in field service reports regularly each month."
Obviously, Witnesses are both "encouraged" and "instructed" to report their ministry. They are not "required" to do so.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, an independently published RS, or primary sources published by the JWs? Upon which should we base our wording? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Encouraged is JW jargon, usually for something they're told to do. JWs who do not submit a report are labeled 'irregular' (missed 1 month) or 'inactive' (missed 6 months). Because there are repercussions for not reporting, that suggests that required is more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The issue was previously discussed at Talk:Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll concede that the OKM of December 2002 did use the word "instructed", and that source was cited at that article. Since a Witness editor has decided that he finds it less offensive to be "instructed" than "required" to do something, I'll defer to him. I'm content to use the word "instructed". LTSally (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mind 'instructed' in this instance, however there seems to be a recent tendency in the article to assert that JWs are instructed, in a similar sense as the jargon-term encouraged, with some vague implication that this particular word is preferable to saying JWs are directed/taught. No particular word needs to be dogmatically applied in such instances.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why we should be using a word that Jeff identifies as JW 'jargon'. A lot of this comes off (in my eyes) as an attempt by JW editors to whitewash this article. If it quacks like a duck... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with Jeffro's notion that "instructed" is a particularly JW jargon term - I don't know of any special usage of the term by JW's apart from the common ones. The reason "instructed" may be preferable is that it is neutral as to whether reporting is a requirement the non-fulfillment of which may have repercussions or whether it is permissible for JW's to refrain from reporting. The "duck" principle is not useful for establishing a neutral article in colaboration with editros from different backgrounds because what quacks like a duck to you may roar like a lion to others. also it isn't really a serious argument at all.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Maunus, please note that I did not say that instructed is JW jargon. Encouraged is employed as JW jargon, and I have noticed a tendency in the article for a slightly stricter than necessary application of the word instructed, in the same manner as the word encouraged is often employed. To reiterate, there is no reason why other words such as directed, taught etc cannot be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with Jeffro's notion that "instructed" is a particularly JW jargon term - I don't know of any special usage of the term by JW's apart from the common ones. The reason "instructed" may be preferable is that it is neutral as to whether reporting is a requirement the non-fulfillment of which may have repercussions or whether it is permissible for JW's to refrain from reporting. The "duck" principle is not useful for establishing a neutral article in colaboration with editros from different backgrounds because what quacks like a duck to you may roar like a lion to others. also it isn't really a serious argument at all.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The issue was previously discussed at Talk:Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll concede that the OKM of December 2002 did use the word "instructed", and that source was cited at that article. Since a Witness editor has decided that he finds it less offensive to be "instructed" than "required" to do something, I'll defer to him. I'm content to use the word "instructed". LTSally (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Encouraged is JW jargon, usually for something they're told to do. JWs who do not submit a report are labeled 'irregular' (missed 1 month) or 'inactive' (missed 6 months). Because there are repercussions for not reporting, that suggests that required is more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Membership Requires Reporting
Comment: The article states Witnesses have a membership of about 7 million. Inclusion in this number requires reporting; hence reporting is required for membership. Does anyone disagree with this?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Primary source: “Membership” is the number who are actively involved in the public Bible educational work.—See http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Secondary source: “Members” as counted by Watchtower are publishers, and being counted as a publisher requires reporting.— Stark R et al, Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-157 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, a Witness is considered "a publisher" if he submits one report every six months; furthermore, in lieu of a report a Witness may submit a note that he prefers not to report details of his personal ministry. He'll be considered "active" and his zeroes will be averaged into the statistics. I forget which, but one of the formerly-JW writers briefly attests to his personal experience with this in his book.--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Your comment alludes to a letter from Watchtower to an individual named Mark Davis. This letter is published. Have you read it lately?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Neglected to say that though the Davis letter addresses reporting time and says it is not mandatory, in order to qualify as a publisher Davis would still be required to report his activity in terms of literature placements, return visits etc. Hence reporting is required to be counted among the membership because membership is determined by publisher status and publisher status is determined by reporting "field service" activity.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I've never heard of "Mark Davis". It's interesting that he apparently agrees that reporting time isn't a requirement; editors may wish to share a relevant quote from Davis here. I'll try to recall the who and where of the other example.
The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses refer to those who submit reports as "active Witnesses" and as "Witness publishers" plainly implies that there are inactive Jehovah's Witnesses and non-publishing Jehovah's Witnesses who do not submit reports.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) - We've agreed to change the current wording: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are required to provide a monthly report to their congregation on their 'witnessing' activity."
- Suggestion 1: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are instructed to provide a monthly report to their congregation on their 'witnessing' activity." [emphasis added]
- Suggestion 2: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and maintaining status as an "active regular publisher" requires one to report 'witnessing' activity each month."
- Suggestion 1: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are instructed to provide a monthly report to their congregation on their 'witnessing' activity." [emphasis added]
- I have no great preference, but perhaps Suggestion 1 suits this paragraph slightly better.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: 1) Watchtower’s official media site keeps it simple, and so should we. Those who report time are termed “members” (See http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm) Using JW jargon tells readers nothing whatsoever; in fact is confuses readers. 2) The expression “witnessing activity” is likewise JW jargon. Call the activity something readers will understand, and that agrees with the religion’s own depiction of the activity. It is the member’s public ministry. 3) In either event, it is a requirement to report one’s public ministerial activity in order to maintain membership recognition by the religion. If we are not talking about membership recognition by a religion in this instance, then what are we talking about? If we are talking about membership recognition then “requirement” is the appropriate term.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tam's 1st and preferred suggestion is particularly representative of the jargon-like use of the word 'instructed' I have raised earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: 1) Watchtower’s official media site keeps it simple, and so should we. Those who report time are termed “members” (See http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm) Using JW jargon tells readers nothing whatsoever; in fact is confuses readers. 2) The expression “witnessing activity” is likewise JW jargon. Call the activity something readers will understand, and that agrees with the religion’s own depiction of the activity. It is the member’s public ministry. 3) In either event, it is a requirement to report one’s public ministerial activity in order to maintain membership recognition by the religion. If we are not talking about membership recognition by a religion in this instance, then what are we talking about? If we are talking about membership recognition then “requirement” is the appropriate term.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I've never heard of "Mark Davis". It's interesting that he apparently agrees that reporting time isn't a requirement; editors may wish to share a relevant quote from Davis here. I'll try to recall the who and where of the other example.
- Actually, a Witness is considered "a publisher" if he submits one report every six months; furthermore, in lieu of a report a Witness may submit a note that he prefers not to report details of his personal ministry. He'll be considered "active" and his zeroes will be averaged into the statistics. I forget which, but one of the formerly-JW writers briefly attests to his personal experience with this in his book.--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reports- "simple" means replacing "required" with "instructed"
A "simple" approach to correcting the last sentence of the Evangelism section would just replace "required" with "instructed". Anything else introduces complexities.
It seems some are placing undue weight on a single statistical measure, a statistic that would only measure the clergy of most Christian denominations!
"Membership" in the statistical measurement of "active Witnesses" or "publishers" is different from simple adherence to the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. Pressing the absurdity of pretending otherwise, certain editors would apparently argue that young children, severe invalids, newly or temporarily disabled, the very elderly, and even those imprisoned in solitary confinement for their faith cannot be considered Jehovah's Witnesses! Jehovah's Witnesses certainly don't believe that, and it is unencyclopedic to twist their intentionally conservative statistical definitions that way.
If editors believe that statistics is what this section should focus on, there seems no reason to hide that editorial focus. That might be...
Suggestion 3: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and their membership statistic "reflects only those who are actively involved in the public Bible educational work".Table footnote.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: In my early days as a Witness it was stated plainly that God required me to turn in a field service report. This was directed to me as a righteous requirement straight from the Lord. “These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; and, for those who really love the Lord and are guided by his counsel, that is a reasonable service requirement.” (“Righteous Requirements”, The Watchtower, July 1, 1943 p. 205.) Has the Lord changes his mind, or are we mincing words to wax a subject?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: “A tightening up of preaching responsibility began in 1920 by requiring every one in the congregation who participated in the witness work to turn in a weekly report.” (“Modern Restoration of True Worship”, The Watchtower, May 15, 1955 p. 299 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought certain editors were still insisting that Jehovah's Witnesses sprung from thin air in 1931...
That 1955 reference to 1920 Bible Students certainly does not state that a person who fails to report time cannot be a Jehovah's Witness or a Bible Student.
It seems beyond obvious that the "requirement" has changed since 1920.
This seems to increasingly diverge from simplicity, but if certain editors insist upon it, here is another alternative:
Suggestion 4: "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and in 1920 they began "requiring every one in the congregation who participated in the witness work to turn in a weekly report"; such reports are now submitted monthly."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)- Suggestions 3 (vague and evasive) and 4 (rambling) are terrible. Interestingly, the Oxford Concise dictionary defines the word "instruct" (v) as "direct or command a person to do something". If a cop instructs me to pull over and blow in a bag, I won't take it as a suggestion, it's a requirement. When the WTS instructs Witnesses to fill out a report, they are requiring Witnesses to do so. Therefore, the words instruct and require are interchangeable. Return to suggestion 1, changing it to "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are required to provide a monthly report to their congregation on their 'witnessing' activity." LTSally (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- LTSally is correct, and it has also already been pointed out that reporting activity is explicitly a requirement to be counted as a member. (That a member may be counted so long as they don't miss six months rather than only one month is irrelevant to it being a requirement of membership. It is also very unlikely that the the JW who doesn't report for 6 months will not be encouraged by the elders to resume reporting.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestions 3 (vague and evasive) and 4 (rambling) are terrible. Interestingly, the Oxford Concise dictionary defines the word "instruct" (v) as "direct or command a person to do something". If a cop instructs me to pull over and blow in a bag, I won't take it as a suggestion, it's a requirement. When the WTS instructs Witnesses to fill out a report, they are requiring Witnesses to do so. Therefore, the words instruct and require are interchangeable. Return to suggestion 1, changing it to "Witnesses are instructed to devote as much time as possible to preaching activities, and are required to provide a monthly report to their congregation on their 'witnessing' activity." LTSally (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought certain editors were still insisting that Jehovah's Witnesses sprung from thin air in 1931...
Simple = Tell it like it is
In 1920 Watchtower began requiring members to report their personal activity in the public ministry. “A tightening up of preaching responsibility began in 1920 by requiring everyone in the congregation who participated in the witness work to turn in a weekly report.” (Watchtower May 15, 1955 p. 299) The 1975 Yearbook depicts this as making “personal responsibility for preaching was more keenly felt”. (Yearbook 1975 p. 124) Are Witnesses of today still made to “feel” this “personal responsibility”? Yes. “At the end of the month, the book study overseer makes sure that all in the group have followed through on their responsibility to report their activity so that the secretary can submit an accurate congregation report to the branch office by the sixth of the next month. As the end of the month approaches, it may be helpful for him to give the group a reminder and have report slips available at the book study location. If any are forgetful about reporting their activity, he can provide appropriate reminders and encouragement.” (Kingdom Ministry December 2002 p. 8) Do editors here understand what it means for an elder to ‘make sure that members follow through on their responsibility to report field service activity’? I do. It is a requirement and members are made to ‘keenly feel it’. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Storrs
The statement: George Storrs, who had been a Methodist-Episcopal Church minister in the 1830s, a Millerist Adventist preacher in the early 1840s, and an unaffiliated (since 1844) Christian writer and publisher seems to present too much detail about Storrs for the context of the section. Suggest: George Storrs, a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. LTSally (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the statement seems too long, but shortness cannot allow inaccuracy. By the time Storrs associated with Russell, he hadn't been a preacher for decades. If a pithy alternative can be accurate and useful, that's fine.--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the current statement is true, it seems the suggestion is necessarily true. I fail to see the inaccuracy in it. Agree with Jeff's suggestion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- While a former judge or senator may continue to be addressed by his honorific, the term "Christian preacher" is not typically used that way. Storrs pointedly left Millerist preaching in 1844 (and Adventism soon after), so at best it would be misleading to describe him in 1870 as a "Christian preacher". I sometimes interchange "accuracy" with "precision", so perhaps the previous suggestion was imprecise rather than inaccurate; either way, we editors can do better! --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sugg 1: George Storrs, a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s
- Sugg 2: George Storrs, a Christian writer/publisher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s
- Sugg 3: George Storrs, a Christian writer/publisher and former 1840s Millerist preacher
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)- Comment: It baffles me how it is inappropriate to refer to Storrs as “a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s.” By all accounts the man published a paper called The Bible Examiner until the day he died.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does Storrs refer to himself as "a preacher" in The Bible Examiner? It would be useful to have that quote.
References say that Storrs preached until 1844 and that Storrs anticipated a future global preaching work. - Did the previous comment contend that publishing a newsletter is synonymous with preaching?--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: “Did the previous comment contend that publishing a newsletter is synonymous with preaching?” No. The statement contends that publishing a periodical with the sole intent of teaching people there is no eternal life except through Jesus Christ alone is synonymous with preaching, particularly preaching Christianity. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: To me it is absurd to argue whether Storrs is correctly termed a “a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s” when it is already admitted the man was a preacher in the 1840s and then he went on to publish a Christian periodical until the end of his life. What do we think the man did? Sat all alone in a print shop writing prolifically about his conviction but never once entered the fresh air and voicing his conviction?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of correctness, but of accuracy and precision. Please consider re-reading the thread.
What would a typical Wikipedia reader understand a "preacher" to do Wikt?
Is it better to describe 1870s Storrs as a "preacher" or as a "writer and publisher"?
I'd recommend the latter.
As I plainly noted, I'd also be happy to defer to Storrs' self-description.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)- Comment: I admit confusion trying to decipher how a matter of accuracy and precision is something other than a matter of correctness. Notwithstanding that struggle of translation, Storrs certainly disagrees that calling him a preacher is less than accurate and precise. “In 1852 and 1853, in addition to issuing the Examiner, Mr. Storrs traveled thousands of miles, east and west, preaching to many people on the Life Theme. Since the Examiner has been issued twice each month, his labors have been nearly confined to it, and preaching in New York and vicinity.” (A Biographical Sketch, Six Sermons, by George Storrs, 1856 p. 17) Saying Storrs was “a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s” is correct; it is accurate and precise according to Storrs.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't especially care whether Storrs is referenced as a writer or a preacher. "Writer/publisher" seems too informal. Although Storrs did split with Miller, I haven't seen evidence that he left Adventism entirely; in fact, he formed the Life and Advent Union in the 1860s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: There is every reason to think Storrs was a Christian oriented preacher until his dying day, and no reason to think otherwise. It is beyond me how or why it is even questioned given what is admitted of the man.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some claimed it was too wordy to list Storrs' several titles, so the intent was to choose the best to describe what he did while he associated with Russell (the time period being discussed in this article). If Storrs describes his main activity then as "preaching" then it seems obvious that that title is appropriate as the single term by which Storrs can be referred. Thanks for sharing a reference to which I hadn't had access!--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: There is every reason to think Storrs was a Christian oriented preacher until his dying day, and no reason to think otherwise. It is beyond me how or why it is even questioned given what is admitted of the man.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of correctness, but of accuracy and precision. Please consider re-reading the thread.
- Does Storrs refer to himself as "a preacher" in The Bible Examiner? It would be useful to have that quote.
- Comment: It baffles me how it is inappropriate to refer to Storrs as “a Christian preacher previously affiliated with Millerism in the 1840s.” By all accounts the man published a paper called The Bible Examiner until the day he died.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the current statement is true, it seems the suggestion is necessarily true. I fail to see the inaccuracy in it. Agree with Jeff's suggestion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the statement seems too long, but shortness cannot allow inaccuracy. By the time Storrs associated with Russell, he hadn't been a preacher for decades. If a pithy alternative can be accurate and useful, that's fine.--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Watch Tower Society election 1918
I'm puzzled by why you keep adding the phrase that, in the wake of the 1918 WTS election, Rutherford's "opponents had now to seperate themselves from the Society along with their supporters." The statement cites Proclaimers, page 74, as its source, but that book makes no such assertion. It appears to be a suggestion or claim of your own. In the wake of the extended debates at the Jehovah's Witnesses article talk page, it is quite apparent that everyone needs to take much more care about properly and carefully attributing any statements made in the article in order to avoid inserting the opinion of the editor. You are clearly not showing the care required. Furthermore, your statement in the edit summary that "If Rutherford didn't have the majority, he wouldn't remain in his position" is stating the obvious and doesn't explain your edit. In most elections, a person is re-elected because he gains a majority. LTSally (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd guess it's because some keep pretending that JWs left the Bible Student movement; facts such as this one seem plainly to show that JWs stayed while others left.
Vassilis' point is that no one could have stopped former associates from voting at the Watch Tower election of 1918 if they had chosen to do so. They could have campaigned for others to vote differently and they themselves had a legal right to cast their own votes as they chose. The fact that they apparently made no effort to do so strongly implies that they well understood that their loftiest hopes would still only constitute a minority. You might be more interested in page 73 of the reference: "...Some wanted to postpone the [corporation] meeting for six months; others questioned the legality of electing officers who were in prison; others suggested all new officers. ...Showing a desire to submit to Jehovah’s will, [a letter from Rutherford] even humbly suggested suitable men in the event that the shareholders should decide to elect new officers for the Society. Discussion continued for a while longer, and then E. D. Sexton, who had been appointed chairman of a nominating committee, spoke up... Well, Brother Sexton evidently expressed the sentiments of most of those in attendance. There were nominations; a vote was taken; and J. F. Rutherford was elected president".--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)- I wasn't asking you AuthorityTam, and in any case that's not an acceptable answer. Your comment here is clearly advancing a position to justify the wording, which the quote you give here still doesn't support. My point is that the line that Rutherford's "opponents had now to seperate themselves from the Society along with their supporters" is a statement of a subjective view, or opinion, or belief, of the person writing those words — in this case, Vassilis. The article should stick to the facts. LTSally (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, ooookaaaaaaay.
I'm not arguing for or against including this in the article, which is why I didn't write it on the article's talk page. Since my "answer" is purely conjectural on a personal talk page, I disagree that my answer is "unacceptable". There are many purposes for which my answer is perfectly acceptable, and it is for such purposes that it was offered.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)- Since, some wanted so much to speak about a schism in the prologue, at least let the people understand who stayed and who left. People also need to know that the members of the WT Society wasn't a close circle as it is today since 1944, with the amendment of the chart. Then every baptized person could vote for the Board of Directors with the donation of 10 dollars. So, the re-election of Rutherford, after the unsuccesful efforts of taking control of the Society by the "four" (which are discribed in detail by A.H. Macmillan and Cole), meant that the majority of the voting share-holders, that is the hard core of Bible Students, supported Rutherford and that, since the "four" weren't willing to co-operate, they were the ones that had to leave, and took with themselves those supporting and voting them.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's clear from your comments that the statement that those who opposed Rutherford had to leave is your personal opinion. I think we can both agree that (1) all WTS members in 1918 had the opportunity to take part in a democratic election, and (2) the majority voted for Rutherford as president. There is nothing in the cited reference material, however, to support the claim you added to the article that those who failed to gain enough votes had to leave the Watch Tower Society. I think you are confusing an encyclopedia article with a partisan, Watch Tower Society view of history. Unless you can produce a reliable source that makes clear that those who failed to gain enough votes to win a seat on the board of directors had to leave the Society, I'd suggest you not add your personal view to the article of how those men should have acted. I'm curious about your reason for raising the fact that "some wanted so much to speak about a schism in the prologue". The schism is a very important part of the history of the Watch Tower Society, and Watch Tower publications have not been shy about referring to this. The article should refer to this in a matter of fact presentation, without the addition of personal viewpoints. LTSally (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a very interesting exchange. If a majority-minority divide occurs and this means we should speak of the minority as “separating themselves from” the majority then how do we address the tremendous divide occurring in 1927/28 when the vaunted Watchtower sponsored memorial event lost over 80 percent of its attendance? Because a minority remained associated with Watchtower does this mean we should portray this minority as the ones who split “from” the majority? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason, the late 1920s seems a period of giddy delight for certain editors.
While it's true that WT reported greatly diminished figures for IBSA Memorial attendance during those years, no other "branch" of the Bible Student movement has ever claimed to have attracted significant numbers of those missing attendees.
IBSA's loss was NOT their gain.
No period statistics have ever even hinted that IBSA Bible Students were ever less than a majority of the Bible Student movement. The missing attendees were simply inactive in the late 1920s. Within a few years, many apparently reactivated and renewed their association with the Watch Tower and the International Bible Students Association. If former associates did not return in the 1930s, then their new growth was astronomical rather than merely impressive.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)- Comment: “Giddy”?
- Comment: Like it or not, an 80 percent drop in attendance at the annual memorial event is beyond striking; it is downright astonishing. Can you imagine a congregation today whose memorial attendance was around 200 to suddenly find only 39 or 40 at the annual event? Can you imagine that happening worldwide? It would rock the foundation of Watchtower! Has it occurred to you that Rutherford’s rebranding of the Bible Students as Jehovah’s witnesses in 1931 was directly connected with the world rocking under his feet as a result of the 80 percent drop in 1928? Or, do you think this rebranding was purely coincidental? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: My remarks were not to suggest who gained. Rather my remarks were to inquire how we should construct the split (i.e., who leaves who?) when the supermajority leaves the minority? You did not as much as address this, and it is the primary question. Why?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- This thread is getting off-topic. I addressed the matter of whether everyone who "left" actually went somewhere else or became merely inactive for a time. It's a matter of majority versus minority, in contrast with the matter of totality. The so-called "80% drop" would only affect totality, and in the particular of IBSA Memorial attendance it was temporary.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: My remarks are not off topic. I have responded to the question of how to construct an appropriate perspective of a schism. Do we say the minority separated from a majority or do we say a majority separated from a minority? In the 1927/8 schism do we say the minority separated from the majority or do we say the majority separated from the minority?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not understand your statement that the schism of 1927/8 was temporary. It took longer to regain the same number associated with Watchtower after 1928 than it did to achieve the same level from a similar point. These are the numbers: 1918: 17,961; 1927: 88,544; 1928 17,380; 1940 95,327. You do the math.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- "This thread is getting off-topic"? That's a bit rich. I don't know why this discussion is taking place at Vassilis' talk page anyway. I raised an issue with him over his insertion of viewpoint, and within days there's a debate going on here between two other people about something entirely different. Maybe you should go chat at your own talk pages! LTSally (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: My part of this exchange is on this talk page because LTSally raised a question of Vassilis’ construction of a separation that occurred in and around 1918. How does an encyclopedic entry construct elements of a schism in terms of who separates from who? Since I believe this is at the heart of Vassilis’ construction that you question, then my part in this exchange has been to explore the merit of it. If we say, as Vassilis apparently has, that “opponents” separated from Watchtower association because the “opponents” were the minority then how do we construct a perspective of the schism of 1927/8? Would we characterize the minority in that case as the “opponents”? In the 1918 affair the only reason the majority retained ownership and management of Watchtower is because it happened to be that that majority held the legal power. In the 1927/8 schism the only reason the minority retained ownership and management of Watchtower is because it happened to be that that minority held the legal power. What decided who “left Watchtower” had nothing whatsoever to do with the conviction of a majority of Watchtower associates. It had to do with legal control. With respect, since LTSally brought the discussion here, this is where I addressed it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed phrase ("opponents had now to seperate [sic] themselves from the Society along with their supporters") is unnecessary, and may be misleading. People who did not support Rutherford in the vote could separate themselves, and many of them did, but there is no evidence that they had to; and even some of the people who voted for Rutherford might have left as a result of the in-fighting. Maybe a Venn diagram would help anyone who disagrees.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not disagree with that assessment one bit.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- "What became of those opposers and their supporters? After the January 1918 annual meeting, the opposing ones splintered off, even choosing to celebrate the Memorial, on March 26, 1918, on their own. Any unity they enjoyed was short-lived, and before long they broke up into various sects. In most cases their numbers dwindled and their activity diminished or ceased entirely."—Proclaimers (1992), page 68.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- In reality, this merely indicates that the people who left left. It does not necessarily indicate that all who 'opposed' voting for Rutherford left.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- "What became of those opposers and their supporters? After the January 1918 annual meeting, the opposing ones splintered off, even choosing to celebrate the Memorial, on March 26, 1918, on their own. Any unity they enjoyed was short-lived, and before long they broke up into various sects. In most cases their numbers dwindled and their activity diminished or ceased entirely."—Proclaimers (1992), page 68.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not disagree with that assessment one bit.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed phrase ("opponents had now to seperate [sic] themselves from the Society along with their supporters") is unnecessary, and may be misleading. People who did not support Rutherford in the vote could separate themselves, and many of them did, but there is no evidence that they had to; and even some of the people who voted for Rutherford might have left as a result of the in-fighting. Maybe a Venn diagram would help anyone who disagrees.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: My part of this exchange is on this talk page because LTSally raised a question of Vassilis’ construction of a separation that occurred in and around 1918. How does an encyclopedic entry construct elements of a schism in terms of who separates from who? Since I believe this is at the heart of Vassilis’ construction that you question, then my part in this exchange has been to explore the merit of it. If we say, as Vassilis apparently has, that “opponents” separated from Watchtower association because the “opponents” were the minority then how do we construct a perspective of the schism of 1927/8? Would we characterize the minority in that case as the “opponents”? In the 1918 affair the only reason the majority retained ownership and management of Watchtower is because it happened to be that that majority held the legal power. In the 1927/8 schism the only reason the minority retained ownership and management of Watchtower is because it happened to be that that minority held the legal power. What decided who “left Watchtower” had nothing whatsoever to do with the conviction of a majority of Watchtower associates. It had to do with legal control. With respect, since LTSally brought the discussion here, this is where I addressed it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- "This thread is getting off-topic"? That's a bit rich. I don't know why this discussion is taking place at Vassilis' talk page anyway. I raised an issue with him over his insertion of viewpoint, and within days there's a debate going on here between two other people about something entirely different. Maybe you should go chat at your own talk pages! LTSally (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- This thread is getting off-topic. I addressed the matter of whether everyone who "left" actually went somewhere else or became merely inactive for a time. It's a matter of majority versus minority, in contrast with the matter of totality. The so-called "80% drop" would only affect totality, and in the particular of IBSA Memorial attendance it was temporary.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason, the late 1920s seems a period of giddy delight for certain editors.
- Since, some wanted so much to speak about a schism in the prologue, at least let the people understand who stayed and who left. People also need to know that the members of the WT Society wasn't a close circle as it is today since 1944, with the amendment of the chart. Then every baptized person could vote for the Board of Directors with the donation of 10 dollars. So, the re-election of Rutherford, after the unsuccesful efforts of taking control of the Society by the "four" (which are discribed in detail by A.H. Macmillan and Cole), meant that the majority of the voting share-holders, that is the hard core of Bible Students, supported Rutherford and that, since the "four" weren't willing to co-operate, they were the ones that had to leave, and took with themselves those supporting and voting them.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, ooookaaaaaaay.
- I wasn't asking you AuthorityTam, and in any case that's not an acceptable answer. Your comment here is clearly advancing a position to justify the wording, which the quote you give here still doesn't support. My point is that the line that Rutherford's "opponents had now to seperate themselves from the Society along with their supporters" is a statement of a subjective view, or opinion, or belief, of the person writing those words — in this case, Vassilis. The article should stick to the facts. LTSally (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The quote from the Proclaimers book is certainly representative of the comments the Watch Tower Society has made regarding those who left. Several authors have pointed out, however, that the WTS's own view -- largely a casual and contemptuos dismissal of those who opposed Rutherford -- cannot be treated as an unbiased or accurate account of the schism. It was clearly a heated situation. Rutherford and his supporters clearly won the bout, but the WT publications portray only their side of the story. A quite different perspective was provided by publications representing Rutherford's opposers, so relying on combatants from one side only to tell the story is clearly unsafe. LTSally (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Watch Tower has its own point of view, exactly as the Russellites or the ex-JWs, like Penton, have their own. But for me this is the core of the above statement: The independent celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal meant that they chose to set themselves apart from the Watch Tower Society. This is the historical truth.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Prophecies
I removed the statements about the prophecies regarding 1918, 1934 and 1975 that "None of these prophecies have been fulfilled" which was sourced to Franz. The fullfillment of prophecies are not (although JW like to think it is) a matter of fact but one of interpretation. This means that while Franz may see the prophecies as being unfulfilled others (JW) may see them as fulfilled. Therefore a rotund statement that "None of the prophecies have been fulfilled" accepts unquestionedly the Franz POV.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with you on this, but won't revert. If a RS says it was unfulfilled, then we are able to include that. If there is an alt pov (ie, if the JWs say that they were fulfilled), we should include that too. But we can't just say that prophecy fulfillment is out of bounds. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- But Franz is not a reliable source on JW doctrine or beliefs. His writings have a clear anti-JW POV and are not scholarly sources. Indeed I would, as I have stated earlier, be very wary about what Franz can and cannot be used to support. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where in the archives the discussion on Franz is? I know it happened, but I can't find it easily. And if Franz isn't a RS, then why do we continue to cite him? It seems to me that if consensus says he is a RS, we should be able to use him freely. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that all sources, if reliable are necessarily useful to source any claim. Franz is an ex-jehovah's witness who started to write because he felt he was unjustifiedly disfellowshipped, the same with Penton. This means that some of their statements will have an inherent POV and while those statements may still be used they can basically be used to source the "ex-JW" viewpoint - with attribution as such in the text. This means that if the statement were something like "Raymond franz claims that none of these prophecies have been fulfilled" then I could accept it. Likewise a completely respectable source like Holden 2001 contains claims that are provably wrong - about JW history - which is not Hiolden's expertise but still is part of his book - this means in my opinion that Holden shouldn't be used as the only source for claims about history, but can be used freely about sociology which is his expertise and which he treats top-notch. Another example might be Barry fell who was a respected marinebiologist who later in his life began making up outlandish theories about atlantis and early visits to north america by vikings, basque and phoenicians. His writings about marinebiology are probably excellent - but his writings about history aren't. So in the same way sometimes a book is a good source about one topic and a non-reliable source about others. The link to where the source discussions begin is here [3]. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll back off from saying that all sources, if reliable, are necessarily useful to source any claim. Such a blanket generalization should not be made. Unfortunately I'm pretty ignorant of JWs, so at times I might be wading over my head. But in this case...do JWs claim that some or all of the "numerous predictions based on Biblical chronology, many of them surrounding the dates 1914, 1925 and 1975" were fulfilled? If so, I think that would justify removing or qualifying Franz's claim. But if not, if the point is not in contention, then I think it could be re-instated as it was. And thank you for the link. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that all sources, if reliable are necessarily useful to source any claim. Franz is an ex-jehovah's witness who started to write because he felt he was unjustifiedly disfellowshipped, the same with Penton. This means that some of their statements will have an inherent POV and while those statements may still be used they can basically be used to source the "ex-JW" viewpoint - with attribution as such in the text. This means that if the statement were something like "Raymond franz claims that none of these prophecies have been fulfilled" then I could accept it. Likewise a completely respectable source like Holden 2001 contains claims that are provably wrong - about JW history - which is not Hiolden's expertise but still is part of his book - this means in my opinion that Holden shouldn't be used as the only source for claims about history, but can be used freely about sociology which is his expertise and which he treats top-notch. Another example might be Barry fell who was a respected marinebiologist who later in his life began making up outlandish theories about atlantis and early visits to north america by vikings, basque and phoenicians. His writings about marinebiology are probably excellent - but his writings about history aren't. So in the same way sometimes a book is a good source about one topic and a non-reliable source about others. The link to where the source discussions begin is here [3]. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- For example as I understand Jehovah's witnesses doctrine (some of our fellow editors may be able to correct the details on this) the prophecy of 1914 was fulfilled because that was when Christ returned to earth (invisibly) as the Ruler of Jehovah's Kingdom (the organization). ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The section Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions lists a number of unfulfilled predictions. I don't think there is too much room for anyone to dispute that the predictions failed. Did 1914 prove to be the farthest limit of human rule? Were Abel and Noah resurrected in 1925? Did Christ's millennial reign begin in 1975, displacing human governments? Unless contrary evidence can be provided, I'd say the answers are No, no and no. The suggestion by Maunus that the 1914 "prophecy" was fulfilled by Christ's invisible return to earth is utterly wrong. Until the day he died Russell believed Christ had returned invisibly in 1874. The adoption of the 1914 date for Christ's invisible return took place only in 1922. An event cannot be "predicted" eight years after the supposed event. Having said all that, the current wording is sufficient, however, as a summary of the issue; the specifics are in the Controversies and Development of doctrine articles. LTSally (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- A prediction and a prophecy is not technically the same thing. A prophecy is some kind of vaguely worded statement about the future found for example in the bible - the prediction is an interpretation of that prophecy as meaning something specific. In my opinion it would be correct to say that the predictions of specific dates turned out wrong - but not to say that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. As for Russels beliefs, that is of no consequence - what matters is what Jehovahs witnesses believe today and they believe that the 1914 prophecy was fulfilled when Christ returned in 1914 - whether this belief was introduced ex-post-facto is irrelevant and does not change the fact that witnessess to day believe that the prophecy has in fact been fulfilled. Also your ideas of the necessity of proof for prophecies to have been fulfilled are unfounded - for the same reason that you cannot prove that there is no invisible rhino in my room, we also cannot prove that Jesus is not invisibly ruling the world - it is a matter of belief. And event cannot be predicted retrospectively of course but a prophecy can retrospctively be observed to or be (re-)interpretesd as having been fulfilled. Also you misrepresent my statement when you say that I say that the prophecy was fulfilled by christs return in 1914 - I don't believe he returned - modern day witnesses do. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent you. You did clearly say that you thought Witnesses believed the "prophecy" re 1914 to be correct. The wording as it stands is fine, I think. "The WTS has been accused of making false predictions ... since 1870 they have issued numerous predictions ... etc." The matter of the veracity of the belief re 1914 and Christ's return is not an issue as far as failed predictions are concerned. It is a clearcut fact that Russell made predictions of dramatic events for 1914 and 1918 and none of those were fulfilled. (Armageddon didn't break out, worldwide anarchy didn't eventuate, the Bible Students weren't carried to heaven etc) In 1922 the WTS made a decision that Christ had returned invisibly in 1914. Although they applied Bible chronology to arrive at this position, this is not a case of them making a prior prediction, so although critics might disagree with this conclusion, I don't see any accusations that they made false predictions of this. LTSally (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also think the wording as is is ok. Just to end the prediction/prophecy part: you are of course correct that when JW in 1922 said that the prophecy had been fulfilled in 1914 they didn't make a prediction. It is like when we read Nostradamus' prophecies today and look back to say "Ahh that prophecy was fulfilled by the second world war" - if you believe it then the prophecy was fulfilled, if you don't you don't - fulfillment of prophecies is a matter of interpretation and belief. Predictions of course aren't like that but need to state something falsifiable about a future event. So talking about failed predictions is in my opinion very different from saying that "the prophecy wasn't fulfilled. Period."·Maunus·ƛ· 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent you. You did clearly say that you thought Witnesses believed the "prophecy" re 1914 to be correct. The wording as it stands is fine, I think. "The WTS has been accused of making false predictions ... since 1870 they have issued numerous predictions ... etc." The matter of the veracity of the belief re 1914 and Christ's return is not an issue as far as failed predictions are concerned. It is a clearcut fact that Russell made predictions of dramatic events for 1914 and 1918 and none of those were fulfilled. (Armageddon didn't break out, worldwide anarchy didn't eventuate, the Bible Students weren't carried to heaven etc) In 1922 the WTS made a decision that Christ had returned invisibly in 1914. Although they applied Bible chronology to arrive at this position, this is not a case of them making a prior prediction, so although critics might disagree with this conclusion, I don't see any accusations that they made false predictions of this. LTSally (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- A prediction and a prophecy is not technically the same thing. A prophecy is some kind of vaguely worded statement about the future found for example in the bible - the prediction is an interpretation of that prophecy as meaning something specific. In my opinion it would be correct to say that the predictions of specific dates turned out wrong - but not to say that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. As for Russels beliefs, that is of no consequence - what matters is what Jehovahs witnesses believe today and they believe that the 1914 prophecy was fulfilled when Christ returned in 1914 - whether this belief was introduced ex-post-facto is irrelevant and does not change the fact that witnessess to day believe that the prophecy has in fact been fulfilled. Also your ideas of the necessity of proof for prophecies to have been fulfilled are unfounded - for the same reason that you cannot prove that there is no invisible rhino in my room, we also cannot prove that Jesus is not invisibly ruling the world - it is a matter of belief. And event cannot be predicted retrospectively of course but a prophecy can retrospctively be observed to or be (re-)interpretesd as having been fulfilled. Also you misrepresent my statement when you say that I say that the prophecy was fulfilled by christs return in 1914 - I don't believe he returned - modern day witnesses do. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The section Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions lists a number of unfulfilled predictions. I don't think there is too much room for anyone to dispute that the predictions failed. Did 1914 prove to be the farthest limit of human rule? Were Abel and Noah resurrected in 1925? Did Christ's millennial reign begin in 1975, displacing human governments? Unless contrary evidence can be provided, I'd say the answers are No, no and no. The suggestion by Maunus that the 1914 "prophecy" was fulfilled by Christ's invisible return to earth is utterly wrong. Until the day he died Russell believed Christ had returned invisibly in 1874. The adoption of the 1914 date for Christ's invisible return took place only in 1922. An event cannot be "predicted" eight years after the supposed event. Having said all that, the current wording is sufficient, however, as a summary of the issue; the specifics are in the Controversies and Development of doctrine articles. LTSally (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where in the archives the discussion on Franz is? I know it happened, but I can't find it easily. And if Franz isn't a RS, then why do we continue to cite him? It seems to me that if consensus says he is a RS, we should be able to use him freely. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- But Franz is not a reliable source on JW doctrine or beliefs. His writings have a clear anti-JW POV and are not scholarly sources. Indeed I would, as I have stated earlier, be very wary about what Franz can and cannot be used to support. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Beliefs
They claim to use the Bible as the basis for all of their beliefs,[98] although studies of the religion show that the traditional teachings of Russell, as well as the pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible
When we describe the beliefs, we don't make a commentary on them. This is completely illogical and out of the scope of the sub-section.
Imagine if in each belief of JWs, we had comments... The outcome would be ridiculous. Comments on the rejection of Trinity, of Hellfire, of the use of the name of God, etc.
--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given that it has two sources and is relevant, I think it should be included. It may need to be moved though. Perhaps we could create a section about "Authority" to discuss the weight placed on the Bible, and how it is interpreted. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sourced comments can be given for every belief of JWs. So what? It is obvious that this not the place for critical comments. There is a whole article for criticism, where sourced comments can be added.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't necessarily a criticism, it's just a statement of the situation. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- This statement is a comment, so it is out of the scope of the sub-section. Seconldy, this statement is contrary to the beliefs of JWs. It is an effort to deny the belief of JWs that Bible is the supreme authority in matters of faith.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Vassilis78 that that wording implies an anti-JW POV. The rhetorical device of presenting a claim and refuting it with evidence is not a neutral (or respectful) way of describing a religion's belief system. it is also setting up a false dichotomy since the pronunciations of Russel and the Watchtower teachings are ALSO based in (specific interpretations of) the Bible. I would reword it to something like: "Jehovah's Witnesses describe the Bible as the foundation of all their teachings. They also reocgnize the teachings of the Watchtower Organization as presented in the organization's publications as being the sole source of divinely sanctioned interpretations of Biblical messages and therefore in addition to the Bible publications such as "The Watchtower" take on an important function in JW religious practices."·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anti-JW POV? Utter nonsense. Penton and Holden have observed the relative importance to Jehovah's Witnesses of the doctrines established by the Governing Body and the traditional teachings of Russell and Rutherford when placed next to those of the Bible. The observation is not a criticism. Take this on a theoretical basis: imagine there was an article on a remote New Guinean tribe called the Wikinanians. Among their beliefs was a sacred rite of the entire community watching reruns of MASH on TV every Friday night, yet visiting anthropologists observed that in fact the show that ran on Friday night's TV was Gilligan's Island. Would it be reasonable to note this at that point? The section of the article discusses Witnesses' beliefs, so an observation by a couple of academics who have studied the religion and its workings on those beliefs is fair to include. The article is not intended to be a one-sided view of how Witnesses view their own religion. Maunus' suggestion fudges the point and avoids stating what those academics have clearly noted is a feature of their beliefs. LTSally (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please, one thing is a point and another is how it is stated. A rhetorical structure like "X claims that Y, although Z" can only lead to three inferences, either x is stupid, mislead or lying. The fact is that this dichotomy does not exist among the witnesses because they recognize watchtower publications as being both based directly on the bible (which in fact they are - albeit a specific interpretation of it) AND coming from the same source as the Bible (divine inspiration). To set up the issue as if they claim one thing but do another is not a correct description of their beliefs - and it is also not what Holden means when he says what he says about the Watchtower publication occupying a role similar in importance to the bible in JW practice. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is an element of accuracy in LTSally's perspective, in that the Governing Body does make decisions that have no direct basis in scripture (e.g. changing views on whether organ donations are acceptable), however LTSally's analogy would be far more accurate if Gilligan's Island (an entirely different source) were replaced by, say, MASH: Behind the Scenes (a hypothetical derivative work). As Maunus has suggested, the GB's decisions are based on their interpretations of the Bible and principles they derive therefrom. (However, JWs do not generally claim 'divine inspiration' for their literature and have specifically disclaimed such.) Though many JW interpretations are certainly at odds with many mainstream views, and JW literature is silent or vague on certain scriptures that are at odds with their interpretations, the GB never says outright, "The Bible says 'this', but we say 'this' instead."--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest They claim to use the Bible as the basis for all of their beliefs, although some studies of the religion have claimed the traditional teachings of Russell, as well as the pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible ... thus turning both sides into claims. LTSally (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is much value in the extended statement, as the GB/WT views are based on the Bible anyway, albeit frequently their own unique interpretations thereof. Also, the wording is a bit too accusative. As a compromise, perhaps something like: They consider the Bible to be the basis for all of their beliefs. [xyz's] study of the religion has claimed that pronouncements of the Governing Body through Watch Tower publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible. (Removed mention of Russell, as modern JWs have very different views to those of Russell, and the views they still have in common are because they are endorsed by the GB.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jeffro's version is better than Sally's. Russel doesn't really have much to do with what modern Witnesses believe, and I don't think anyone could prove that his old opinions carry more weight than either the bible or the GB. I still think that the wording maintains a false dichotomy between bible/GB-teachings that doesn't exist in the minds of most JW's. The changing of views about e.g. organ donation are still based in the Bible - just a new interpretation of it - and the GB will always back their changing conclusions up with biblical "evidence" for the new interpretation.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is much value in the extended statement, as the GB/WT views are based on the Bible anyway, albeit frequently their own unique interpretations thereof. Also, the wording is a bit too accusative. As a compromise, perhaps something like: They consider the Bible to be the basis for all of their beliefs. [xyz's] study of the religion has claimed that pronouncements of the Governing Body through Watch Tower publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible. (Removed mention of Russell, as modern JWs have very different views to those of Russell, and the views they still have in common are because they are endorsed by the GB.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Our main problem is not whether JWs really base their beliefs on the Bible, but the simple fact that you cannot make comments on the beliefs in this section of the article. For every belief, comments can be found. Shall we put them? Shall we make comments on Jehovah, on Trinity, on Hell etc? If not, this must be deleted. The article on the criticisms offers plenty of space to add the comments on the beliefs.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jeffro's version is fine. Vassilis, you're wrong. There is no "simple fact" that a comment on an academic observation may not be made at that point in the article. Nor is it necessarily a criticism that the pronouncements of the Governing Body carry more weight than the Bible. Here's an example: The section at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Salvation makes the point that the Watch Tower has asserted that zealous preaching is the means by which Witnesses attain salvation. From Rutherford's presidency onward, the Watch Tower has claimed that it is a requirement for Witnesses to go from house to house and preach at every door. This is not explicitly taught in the Bible, and the WTS is pretty much on its own in interpreting Acts 20:20 as meaning "from house to house", as the NWT renders it. Therefore the direction to Witnesses that they must regularly engage in the field ministry to remain in God's favour and be saved at Armageddon is a Governing Body teaching, not a Bible teaching. Since Chrisianity's beginnings, it appears that only those individuals who have been taught by the WTS since the mid-1920s have come to that understanding. The whole Witness belief about 1914 sprang from Russell's formula of Bible chronology, and on his choice of dates, not on the Bible per se. Therefore the observation that pronouncements of the Governing Body carry more weight than the Bible would seem to be accurate and fair. LTSally (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are not going to discuss here what is a Bible teaching or not. What I said is very simple: when we describe what JWs believe, we don't describe what others believe about JWs. This is not the section to make comments or try to refute the teachings of JWs. I am asking you again: can we add critical comments as regards Jehovah, the Trinity or the burning Hell? Yes or no?--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your question makes no sense. If Witnesses said one thing about burning hell but practised another, then yes, but as far as I know their views on Jehovah, the trinity and hellfire are consistent. The comment about the Bible is not a critical comment by someone else about how to interpret the Bible. It is an observation contained in studies of JWs about how the JWs use the Bible as the basis of their beliefs and is thus appropriate to mention at that point. I didn't give that example to start a debate about the doctrine, only to demonstrate that the doctrine is not found explicitly in the Bibe but has been devised by the GB. LTSally (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is critical, and this is the reason why you insist on that. Watchtower publications say that they consider the Bible as their authority, not the opposite. Watchtower publications say that they are study tools of the Bible, not the source of faith.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The wording I have suggested does not indicate anything other than sourced information about what has been said about the organization with respect to the subsection, which is entirely valid, and accusatory language has been removed. Please note also that suggestion that the Bible is universally 'good' or that it 'should' be the highest source are not neutral views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is critical, and this is the reason why you insist on that. Watchtower publications say that they consider the Bible as their authority, not the opposite. Watchtower publications say that they are study tools of the Bible, not the source of faith.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your question makes no sense. If Witnesses said one thing about burning hell but practised another, then yes, but as far as I know their views on Jehovah, the trinity and hellfire are consistent. The comment about the Bible is not a critical comment by someone else about how to interpret the Bible. It is an observation contained in studies of JWs about how the JWs use the Bible as the basis of their beliefs and is thus appropriate to mention at that point. I didn't give that example to start a debate about the doctrine, only to demonstrate that the doctrine is not found explicitly in the Bibe but has been devised by the GB. LTSally (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are not going to discuss here what is a Bible teaching or not. What I said is very simple: when we describe what JWs believe, we don't describe what others believe about JWs. This is not the section to make comments or try to refute the teachings of JWs. I am asking you again: can we add critical comments as regards Jehovah, the Trinity or the burning Hell? Yes or no?--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Movement
I have changed movement to denomination in the opening sentence. Though Jehovah's Witnesses developed from a 'movement', it itself is a specific discreet group, whereas a movement is a collective of related things. If editors have problems with the word 'denomination', please consider replacing with something like religion/group/order etc, but not 'movement' for accuracy's sake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think JW falls under the sociological definition of denomination. "movement" is sourced to an RS like Holden - can we source denomonation as well?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- If editors have problems with the word 'denomination'... whoa! deja vu... Religion/group/order/organization/some other thing? They are by definition not strictly a movement ("a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal"), regardless of who says they are one. They aren't a group of various organizations working toward a common goal. Nor are they merely people tending toward a common goal, but rather they are directed by a hierarchical structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again the sociological usage of "movement" isn't the same as the more common definition. See for example the term "New Religious Movement" which is probably what Holden was thinking about when he chose to use the word movement instead of denomination/sect or some other. In my opinion "movement" or "sect" are acceptable terms - but sect probably does have negative connotations for most people. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- also the source (MSN encarta) used to source the "denomination" term doesn't use that term but instead writes "group". We will have to find a source for denomination if we will use that word.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oxford Concise dictionary defines denomination as Church or religious sect. The trouble is that the Witnesses insist they are not a denomination because it makes them sound as if they're like everybody else. They believe, of course, they are the one true representation of God on earth, which is why they for years refused to even classify themselves as a religion. Bottom line is they are a religious denomination, just as the Baptists, Uniting Church and Roman Catholics are. LTSally (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a problem with religious organization?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- LTSally the witnesses lack four features that normally characterize a denomination - 1. some tolerance for doctrinal inconformity, 2. tolerance of inter-faith relations, 3. new members mainly coming from natural reproduction rather than preslytism. 4. not striving to be separate from the general community but rather to be an important part of it.These are the reasons I think most sociologists prefer to count the witnesses as a "sect" rather than a denomination. Beckford writing in 1976 even wrote that he doubted that the witnesses would ever make it past the "sect" stage and become a true denomination, which is otherwise the natural development of sects that attain high membership rates. As long as we can source "denomination" or "organization" to a reliable source I have not problem with either. Currently the status is unsourced which is obviously not optimal.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Austrian Times, 2009-05-08]
"Jehovah’s Witnesses hail legal ´milestone´
By Thomas Hochwarter
"Jehovah’s Witnesses have hailed a "milestone" decision by Austrian authorities to legally recognise them as a religious denomination. The Austrian Cult Office said yesterday (Thurs) that the religious group had been given the recognition after eight weeks of negotiations."
ReligiousTolerance.org], "This essay is one of many dozens of essays on Christian denominations. It is published by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance which is not related to either the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"We receive an enormous number of complaint Emails critical of our description of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian denomination. ...please note that we do not respond to abusive or obscene Emails which unfortunately form the majority of Emails on this topic."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)- Interesting. That prettyy much refutes Sallys notion that JW doesn't want to be a denomination but instea prefer to be special. That idea also din't really reflect my experiences. Also it is interesting that apparetly JW is oficially a denomination in some countries but not in others.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- They do indeed prefer to be considered distinct, and do not refer to themselves as denomination. However, when they are given legal recognition in a particular jurisdiction such as by a court, the rulings occasionally cite the group as a denomination or even sect, in which instances JWs still accept the ruling that allows them to operate openly rather than reject the ruling of legal status on that basis). JWs literature frequently refers to itself as an "organization", and there doesn't seem to be any contention with saying it is a religious organization.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. That prettyy much refutes Sallys notion that JW doesn't want to be a denomination but instea prefer to be special. That idea also din't really reflect my experiences. Also it is interesting that apparetly JW is oficially a denomination in some countries but not in others.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Austrian Times, 2009-05-08]
- LTSally the witnesses lack four features that normally characterize a denomination - 1. some tolerance for doctrinal inconformity, 2. tolerance of inter-faith relations, 3. new members mainly coming from natural reproduction rather than preslytism. 4. not striving to be separate from the general community but rather to be an important part of it.These are the reasons I think most sociologists prefer to count the witnesses as a "sect" rather than a denomination. Beckford writing in 1976 even wrote that he doubted that the witnesses would ever make it past the "sect" stage and become a true denomination, which is otherwise the natural development of sects that attain high membership rates. As long as we can source "denomination" or "organization" to a reliable source I have not problem with either. Currently the status is unsourced which is obviously not optimal.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a problem with religious organization?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oxford Concise dictionary defines denomination as Church or religious sect. The trouble is that the Witnesses insist they are not a denomination because it makes them sound as if they're like everybody else. They believe, of course, they are the one true representation of God on earth, which is why they for years refused to even classify themselves as a religion. Bottom line is they are a religious denomination, just as the Baptists, Uniting Church and Roman Catholics are. LTSally (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- also the source (MSN encarta) used to source the "denomination" term doesn't use that term but instead writes "group". We will have to find a source for denomination if we will use that word.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again the sociological usage of "movement" isn't the same as the more common definition. See for example the term "New Religious Movement" which is probably what Holden was thinking about when he chose to use the word movement instead of denomination/sect or some other. In my opinion "movement" or "sect" are acceptable terms - but sect probably does have negative connotations for most people. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- If editors have problems with the word 'denomination'... whoa! deja vu... Religion/group/order/organization/some other thing? They are by definition not strictly a movement ("a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal"), regardless of who says they are one. They aren't a group of various organizations working toward a common goal. Nor are they merely people tending toward a common goal, but rather they are directed by a hierarchical structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Still dodging the issue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article identifies them as a denomination, so call a spade a spade. Why a religious organization? If the WTS allows itself to be identified as a denomination in Austria (and I'll admit I'm surprised, and wrong on that point), then that description should gain everyone's approval. I'm not sure where Maunus draws his "four features that normally characterize a denomination". According to Wikipedia's own definition of a religious denomination, they fit in fairly comfortably. LTSally (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look here: [typology]. I still don't have anything against calling it a denomination IF it can be sourced. I haven't seen any other sources than the austrian newspaper so far.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Denomination
- Emphasis added to the following quotes...
- USA Today, June 18, 2002, "The next time some Jehovah’s Witnesses interrupt your dinner, you might consider thanking them. In gritty dedication to their religious principles, this out-of-the-mainstream denomination of scarcely 1 million members [in the United States] has probably done more than any other institution to secure freedom of speech for individual Americans... For the Witnesses, going to the high court is a familiar routine.” (as quoted in Awake!, January 8, 2003, p 10)
- Malawi Congress Party resolution, September 1967, "[We] recommend strongly that the Jehovah’s Witnesses denomination be declared illegal in this country.” (as quoted in 1999 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 178)
- La Stampa newspaper, Italy, 'Jehovah’s Witnesses are the second-largest denomination in Italy, now numbering over 200,000' (as cited by Awake!, February 22, 1995, page 31)
- Houston Post, quoting Baptist clergyman John McDonald, who represents the group in Houston, Texas, “said his group would approach each candidate for an interview and support the ones believed to best represent its creed” in upcoming local elections. “He said there are 800 persons and churches on his [Moral Majority] mailing list, including just about every denomination but Jehovah’s Witnesses,” reports the Post. (as cited by Awake!, March 8, 1981, page 29)
- Windsor Star, Canadian newspaper, an article by Maurice Jefferies from Ottawa on the results of the then latest Canadian Census (1961). It agreed with the newspaper headline, which read, “Jehovah’s Witnesses Fastest in Growth.” The brief note said: “CENSUS NOTE: The latest report on religious denominations shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses make up the fastest-growing denomination in Canada. They doubled in numbers from 34,596 to 68,018 in the last decade.” (as cited by 1979 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 161)
- Awake!, March 22, 1982, page 29, "Lisbon’s influential daily newspaper Diário de Notícias recently published results of a survey on the subject of religion in Portuguese life. The article was subtitled “Jehovah’s Witnesses: the Second Most Known Religion.” It pointed out that, although Catholicism is professed by the majority of Portuguese by far, Jehovah’s Witnesses make up the next largest group of worshipers, as compared to Judaism or Protestants as a whole.
- JW-Media.org press release, "In his expert opinion submitted to the Golovinsky Court in 1998, Professor Bryan R. Wilson of Oxford, England, comments that it is strange to take issue with the fact "that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion." He adds: "This is a very strange objection to make against any denomination adhering to the teachings of Jesus, since the claim to be the only true religion is a general claim of Christianity... In making this claim, Jehovah's Witnesses do no more than is the accepted teaching of most Christian churches and movements."[footnote]Sworn Expert Opinion, Bryan Ronald Wilson, November 9, 1998, p 4."
- USA Today, June 18, 2002, "The next time some Jehovah’s Witnesses interrupt your dinner, you might consider thanking them. In gritty dedication to their religious principles, this out-of-the-mainstream denomination of scarcely 1 million members [in the United States] has probably done more than any other institution to secure freedom of speech for individual Americans... For the Witnesses, going to the high court is a familiar routine.” (as quoted in Awake!, January 8, 2003, p 10)
- --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's clear they can be called a 'denomination' (which is why it was the word I used in the first place). However, I think it might be more agreeable to change it to 'religious organization'. Does anyone disagree with the specific term religious organization (regardless of whether they think other terms are valid)?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Emphasis added to the following quotes...
Separateness
"They abstain from celebrating religious holidays and birthdays and reject many customs they claim have pagan origins."
Do they claim pagan origins for holidays or customs that do not have pagan origins? Should the word 'claim' be removed? LnKGH (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since everything basically has pagan origins it is a question of degree so the usefulness of "claim" is to show that other christian denominations do not believe new years celebrations or birthdays are sufficiently "pagan" for them to be in conflict with a basic christian stance. I could support changing "claim" with "believe".·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with your suggestion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that a better wording would be: "they claim to have pagan elements or even origin" or somethings similar.
- Origin is only part of the case. For instance, Easter is the transformation of the traditional Christian memorial of Christ's death called Pascha in the 2nd century and celebrated in 14th of Nissan. So, from this viewpoint Easter has a Christian origin, but it incorporated pagan elements during the centuries.--Vassilis78 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why, I suppose, the sentence says they refrain from celebrating religious holidays and birthdays and reject many customs they claim have pagan origins. It's interesting to read Rutherford's comment on why Bible Students shouldn't celebrate Mother's Day: "The so-called 'Mother's Day' was observed in America first in 1914, the very year that Satan's world ended ... to induce the people to bestow special honor and worship upon mothers would be one step towards turning the people away from the worship of God ... The purpose being to establish creature worship, or at least to divert the attention of man from the proper worship of God." (Vindication, 1931, pages 158-159.) Rutherford was always good at spotting satanic plots, and marking one day when Mum gets breakfast in bed and a special family lunch is definitely a devious way of getting people to worship humans and turn them away from God. No wonder Witnesses, who all no doubt know the reasons for the ban, still have no part of it. LTSally (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Origin is only part of the case. For instance, Easter is the transformation of the traditional Christian memorial of Christ's death called Pascha in the 2nd century and celebrated in 14th of Nissan. So, from this viewpoint Easter has a Christian origin, but it incorporated pagan elements during the centuries.--Vassilis78 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, sure, no wonder some intelligent and educated apostates accept and promote some of the doctrines of Christendom that all the academic world recognize as having pagan origins, like the Trinity, the immortality of the soul or the veneration of the cross—not to mention the efforts of some apostates to support homosexuality on biblical grounds (sic). There is a suitable verse from 2nd Peter for such cases…--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would also mention how the keen supporters of the “Christian freedom”, in order to help others to escape from the “Brooklyn dictatorship”, willingly cooperated with religious organizations that have a long record of bloodshed, racism and religious intolerance, but I understand that it is out of the scope of the discussion.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Vassilis, I have no idea of what you're banging on about. My point was that the issue of pagan origins in that sentence was quite separate to religious holidays, so therefore ... oh, never mind. Why would I bother? LTSally (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Rutherford was always good at spotting satanic plots, and marking one day when Mum gets breakfast in bed and a special family lunch is definitely a devious way of getting people to worship humans and turn them away from God. No wonder Witnesses, who all no doubt know the reasons for the ban, still have no part of it."
- It's comments like these that allow the motives of your edits to be questioned. It's a shame because on the face of it you seem to be fairly intelligent. Jamie (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Er, a compliment I think. Sorry, the idea that kids and dads all over the world giving their mums a special day is somehow a satanic plot just strikes me as a bit ... fanatical. Maybe you think that sounds reasonable. But feel free to decide for yourself the motive of my edits. I make sure they're all based on reliable sources, so they should all be true. LTSally (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your missing my point. Your opinion that certain beliefs of a religious movement are "fanatical" clearly indicates a negative bias on your part. Your sources may well be reliable but it does not stop you pushing a negative agenda. I get the impression that sometimes you, along with other editors, are not trying to improve the encyclopaedic content of the article, but instead ensure that anything controversial is not missed. It seems petty. Jamie (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing controversial is missing, even stupid details, but many important facts are missing. For instance, in the current version of the article nothing is mentioned for the global and extensive persecution against JWs. The article needs much editing to reach the true encyclopedic standards.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Persecution of Witnesses and incidents of mob violence is discussed relating to World War I and World War II, with a link to a separate article on persecution of the Witnesses in Nazi Germany. A reference to government bans is also contained in the introduction. What else do you think is missing? I presume the "stupid details" are the facts that portray the Witnesses in a less than flattering light. As stated repeatedly, this article does not exist to promote your religion. LTSally (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Neither should this article be an expression of empathy by the anti-JWs. The majority of the articles on JWs have a heavy anti-JW point of view. The information choosen from the bibliography is carefully selected to support the anti-JW agenda.--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that "important facts are missing", then add them, with appropriate references, rather than just complaining that they're not there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Neither should this article be an expression of empathy by the anti-JWs. The majority of the articles on JWs have a heavy anti-JW point of view. The information choosen from the bibliography is carefully selected to support the anti-JW agenda.--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Persecution of Witnesses and incidents of mob violence is discussed relating to World War I and World War II, with a link to a separate article on persecution of the Witnesses in Nazi Germany. A reference to government bans is also contained in the introduction. What else do you think is missing? I presume the "stupid details" are the facts that portray the Witnesses in a less than flattering light. As stated repeatedly, this article does not exist to promote your religion. LTSally (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing controversial is missing, even stupid details, but many important facts are missing. For instance, in the current version of the article nothing is mentioned for the global and extensive persecution against JWs. The article needs much editing to reach the true encyclopedic standards.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your missing my point. Your opinion that certain beliefs of a religious movement are "fanatical" clearly indicates a negative bias on your part. Your sources may well be reliable but it does not stop you pushing a negative agenda. I get the impression that sometimes you, along with other editors, are not trying to improve the encyclopaedic content of the article, but instead ensure that anything controversial is not missed. It seems petty. Jamie (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Er, a compliment I think. Sorry, the idea that kids and dads all over the world giving their mums a special day is somehow a satanic plot just strikes me as a bit ... fanatical. Maybe you think that sounds reasonable. But feel free to decide for yourself the motive of my edits. I make sure they're all based on reliable sources, so they should all be true. LTSally (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's comments like these that allow the motives of your edits to be questioned. It's a shame because on the face of it you seem to be fairly intelligent. Jamie (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)