Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 24

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Faithful and Discreet Slave

I consider this article's headline to be misleading. The article is not actually about the 144 000, it is about the leadership of the organization. I think it would do much better if renamed to Jehovah's Witnesses and teaching authority or something. Summer Song 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. How is that misleading? I think the title should remain "Faithful and Discreet Slave." That is where the teaching authority is vested. Dtbrown 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is actually not describing a group of people. It deals with the way of leading the organization when it comes to doctrinal matters.Summer Song 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The title "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is the term used by JWs to describe who leads the organization in doctrinal matters. So, I think the title is accurate and should be reverted. Dtbrown 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not with you in this. "Faithful Sevant" is a word connected to the 144 000. The article is about the teaching authority and the history of the leadership among JW when it comes to doctrinal matters. It is not describing the 144 000 or any other group. The article is about a broad matter. The Faithful Servant are just the ones who currently hold the teaching authority. Summer Song 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 24.87.87.211 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The length of the article - again

Appearently, the section about the history is almost identical with the in depth article. I think that the section would do better if made shorter. Summer Song 08:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The plan was to make the indepth articles longer. That was a project I had planned to start but haven't done as of yet, though I hope to soon. Dtbrown 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article desperatly needs to be split up, it is WAY too long (97 KB) compared to the recommened maximum of 32 KB. I belive the Believes and practises section could be cut down a bit! -- Snailwalker | talk 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section "History" should be thoroughly shortened down. It is mostly identical with the article with the same name. Summer Song 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I intend to start augmenting the side "History" article very soon so that they will no longer be identical. Dtbrown 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are many differences between the main "History" article and the side "History" article. I'm working on developing the side "History" article in sandbox. Dtbrown 13:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats good, but honestly, the main History is too long. The main article must be kept shorter.Summer Song 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A few months ago there were complaints the main History section did not have enough substance. As it stands, the main History section is a conflation and abridgement of two former sections. Why "must" the article be kept shorter? Dtbrown 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Most complaints have been made about the length of the article. Why should not the history section be kept shorter and the information be moved to the history article? Summer Song 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the history/eschatology section on the main page is a bare bones approach. There is so much more than could be said and should be said on the side articles. But, why pick on the history/eschatology section? If anything, the beliefs and practices section could be shortened and moved to side pages, IMO. 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

source ?????

"They have been instrumental in establishing religious freedoms in various countries." THis is a vague statement that should only stay in if there are good sources

Introductory paragraphs needn't have sources if the assertations are expounded upon elsewhere in the article on in the article series. In this instance, see Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses for some examples that support this statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

jiuyiu7998f introductoin

Not A Christian Denomination

Not all Christian denominations believe in the Trinity. Also, the word 'Trinity' was in no way mentioned in the Bible but i will not go into this. All the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the bible that you say is 'modified' but is actually closely derived from the 'King James Version' of the Bible which is a widely accepted translation among all Christians.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and therefore do not classify as a Christian denomination because they do not believe in the Trinity. They do not believe the equality of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. - —This unsigned comment was added by 81.106.138.171 (talk • contribs) .

We should stick to the definition of this resource: see Christian. - CobaltBlueTony 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to start endless edit wars over this. I say let's stick with the original opening sentence which allows the Witnesses their view of themselves but does not require sourcing conflicting interpretations of word meanings. Dtbrown 16:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I think some random person simply had a beef and felt the need to express their opinion. - CobaltBlueTony 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though people think that Jehovah's Witnesses are not christians, we need to examine the core beliefs that are held by christians all around. While they don't worship the trinity, they do believe in the three core components of it. I was a Jehovah's Witness and can provide much insight on the matter. The Trinity belief is that the father, the son, and the holy ghost are all one essence. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is a father (Jehovah) and there exists the Son (Jesus) who was the first being ever to be created by Jehovah; he is a seperate entity. There is also Jehovah's 'active force' which he uses to enact his will. It is not him but what he uses, say as a tool, to help people. All people must remember too that all of their beliefs are still based on a version of the actual bible even though it is 'modified'. They still maintain the beliefs that all christians do and in some cases are better at it than others. They may be annoying but they are still christian. ***Note: Who says that Christians have to believe in the Trinity anyway???

Who says that Christians have to believe in the Trinity anyway???

That'd be the ecumenical creeds - the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. Fishhead64 06:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Arrians were Christians and Unitarians. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and Clarification Within

While I certainly understand the effort to not be repetitive, I would also like to point out there is an ease of reading goal too. For someone who visits the page and overlooks that they are reading the "Beliefs" section it would most likely make the question the entire article's NPOV to read the statement "Jehovah's Witness are the one true religion." It certainly sounded that it was written by someone with that belief, not just someone trying to keep repetition down. I personally think that in order to benefit the greatest numbers of readers (and not have them dismiss the article) the clarification that is it their belief be left within that sentence. I did not notice anywhere else that clarification was needed. JayM 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate what you're saying. This is a difficult question in my opinion. For instance the opening line "The entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God." could be seen as pov. Should it not read, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God."? If one were to do that, you would have to jam qualifiers everywhere. I wanted a solution which would avoid repeating one's self over and over again. Should we really be concerned about the pov opinion of readers who don't read at least that section sequentially? Readability concerns are valid, and I admit that one sentence does read awkwardly. Any ideas? joshbuddy 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An addendum, looking at other belief sections, many have used the first sentence of each piece to say "such-and-such believe..." I think this is reasonable. Someone feel like altering the first sentence of each section to reflect that? (If everyone likes the idea) joshbuddy 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way to go. For whatever reason it was just that one particular statement that felt antagonistic to someone else reading the article. For some reason I did not feel that another person would be put off by the other statements as much as the one true religion statement. Hrmph. If others agree in adding the "JW's believe" opening statement, then I can do it if no one else wants to. But I'm also good on just leaving the belief qualifier in there for only the one true religion statement. JayM 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting that that one statements provokes such a visceral reaction. I think it would be arbitrary if we left the qualifier in on that one statement, but left it off everywhere else. I think either the qualifier needs to removed and the preamble for beliefs expanded, or it needs to be added everywhere. joshbuddy 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, do you like the new beliefs section? It took me awhile to do, haven't really heard if anyone likes it or not. joshbuddy 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks accurate and good to me, I appreciated the presentation quite a bit. It has been a while though, while I was raised as a JW and was bapitized in '94, I've since changed my mind on religion and am now much more Zen in my approach to life. If no one else has a comment, then I'd say removal of the qualifier for the one statement and an expansion of the starting Beliefs section would be a very good thing. JayM 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say to that, go nuts. I look forward to seeing your change. joshbuddy 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That edit looks just perfect to me! Thanks for the conversation and agreement! JayM 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I talked to a couple of admins in irc, and they suggested something along these lines. Seperate out the critical content from the beliefs so that it only reflects JW beliefs. Then create a section called Critical View of Beliefs and Practices, and add in that data. They felt the disclaimer was unneeded as the context make it clear. joshbuddy 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Whether the disclaimer is needed or not I personally feel that it makes the article much more accomodating to the reader. Your choice however, as you are the one interested in maintaining the article. Enjoy yourself and feel free to archive this section, I promise not to poke my nose in your article again. I do thank you for considering someone elses opinion. JayM 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very willing to consider your opinion on this. I'm hardly married to the current way its done. How would you go about writing the beliefs section in such a way as to not incur too much repetition? Perhaps take a smaller section and re-write it. Hey, if its better, who am I to oppose it? My concern was with having to constantly restate over and over that this is a JW belief. joshbuddy^talk 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that each section that is describing JW beliefs, should be introduced with something along the lines of "JW's believe that..." or "For JW's, ..." If you come up with three or four such variations to rotate, it shouldn't get too tedious. I suggest for each subsection with a heading, because it's possible to link to those sections directly via a link like Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs (if I did that right), so one might easily miss the qualifier. Wesley 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Nazi persecution not notable enough for lead in?

I don't understand this? I thought the Nazi persecution was notable enough for mention within the lead-in. It was taken from the governments section. How is it "propaganda"? joshbuddy 16:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. Dtbrown 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on Jews and Homosexuals do not mention Nazis in their introductory paragraphs. While the Nazi mistreatment of Witnesses should indeed feature in the article, it doesn't really belong in the introduction, and its presence there could be seen as a bit propaganda-ish.--Jeffro77 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Jews and Homosexuals are deeper topics, with far more ground to cover. While I agree it is somewhat propaganda-ish, the lead in is supposed to summarize the article. If you can put in a balancing point or reword it (from the article) then it should be fine. joshbuddy^talk 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is also less known. I think that is one reason it deserves mention in the introduction. Dtbrown 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is unique and notable is that nearly all Witnesses in Germany could have easily escaped the fate assigned to them by Nazi ideology by nominally denouncing their faith -- and not get caught praticing it -- but chose to refuse to compromise in any way. Few others had any chance at all of escaping the Nazi plan. - CobaltBlueTony 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that bit of pro-Witness trivia has to do with whether mention of Nazis belongs in the introduction. The lead-in should contain general information about Witnesses, not details about a specific period of time that is not distinctly related to their formation or beliefs.--Jeffro77 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see why this is an issue. It is notable and worthy of inclusion in the introduction, IMO. Dtbrown 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JW and Cult

Someone wants to add the word cult to describe the Witnesses. I don't like the word cult because its very loaded language. There are better more accurate words to describe religious groups such as the witnesses. I think most good sources would avoid the word cult. Anyone else's opinion? joshbuddy^talk 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine the Britannica or some other dead-tree encyclopedia using the word "cult" to describe the JWs. Just because something is sourced (as this guy is doing) does not mean it's acceptable here. Dtbrown 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Jones Encyclopaedia of Religion pg. 2,084 opens the "Cults and Sects" article by stating:

"CULTS AND SECTS. The terms cult and sect are regarded as stereotype-loaded terms that are associated with new or unpopular religious movements, and these terms are thus mostly avoided by scholars. They are, however, widely used by the media and by groups (especially so-called anticult groups) that perceive certain new religious movements as objectionable and dangerous. In contemporary English, cult functions as the derogatory word, with sect reserved for less controversial groups."

It further states on pg. 2,085 of the same article (this is the important part):

"The latest influential sociological statement of the differences between church, sect, and cult was included in The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (1985) by American sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge. A church is defined (following Troeltsch) as a religious group that accepts, and cooperates with, the dominant social milieu, while a sect is a religious group in a situation of tension or hostility with respect to the social mainstream. However, the same group may be regarded at the same time as a sect in one country and a church in another. A sect is by definition a group that exhibits some degree of deviance while remaining within a tradition perceived as nondeviant in a given society. According to this definition, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect because they are perceived as deviant by mainstream Christianity, yet remain within a (heterodox Christian tradition that is not perceived as deviant per se in the West. While sects, though deviant, remain within a nondeviant tradition, cults are perceived as both deviant and as belonging to a deviant tradition."

And here's the section that matters most (same article, sub-heading The Anticult Movement, pg. 2,085):

THE ANTICULT MOVEMENT. For the anticult movement, the distinction is simple. Religions and churches are joined out of free will. Cults and sects (the distinction between the two being somewhat blurred) use mind control, or “brainwashing,” in order to attract members and keep them within the fold. Although only a tiny minority of academic scholars throughout the world would take this distinction seriously, it has been used in parliamentary reports and laws (particularly in Europe) and is still widely quoted by the news media."

Minority views are an inappropriate source for Wikipedia giving what's known as Undue weight. It can be said: "Witnesses are considered by the Anticult Movement to be a cult." In light of the fact that the Anticult Movement is the minority, and the fact that no independantly established Encyclopaedia catagorizes Witnesses as a "Cult", it shouldn't be allowed. Duffer 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Though some Witness behaviour may be viewed by some as bordering on cult-like, it is indeed NOT appropriate to refer to the religion as a cult, as it diminishes the significance of the term. It would be appropriate to refer to the organisation as a sect in the strict sense of the word, but it would not significantly benefit the article, and could imply biased overtones.--Jeffro77 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

jeovah witness should be expelled from wikipedia due to hate against other religions.according to the wikipedia policy not make hateful statements against other people.13:05,25march2006

I don't think the word "cult" is all that great, because of confusion over what is meant. It has a very specific meaning in anthropology; I've heard that in some parts of the world it just means "sect" or even "denomination." "Heretical" seems like a much clearer adjective to describe the perspective of the anticult movement and of trinitarian Christians in general towards nontrinitarian religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This issues has been beat to death many times already here on the talk pages. Check the archives and you'll find that the end result is always the same: "Cult" is the religious equivalent of the "N" word. It is academically meaningless, and simply a perjorative term used to incite. Don't use it! --DannyMuse 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary defines a cult as "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

It's pretty extremist to excommunicate people for accepting a blood transfusion for their child who is not old enough to consent to any religious or medical procedures. False? They insist that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC rather than 587, despite the ample evidence against that claim. Authoritarian? You can get excommunicated for airing your doubts about the faith or even associating with people who do so.

If the shoe fits, wear it. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColdRedRain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 April, 2006.

If I'm allowed to aim an opinion at only one of your points: How can the Jerusalem matter be enough to classify them as a cult? If you look closer into this teaching, or perhaps ask them yourself, I'm positive they'll explain why they put their teaching this way. Also, if one is using such things as arguments, one could ask himself about Christianity and their teaching that everything was created in seven days, despite the ample evidence against that claim, hmm? 14:58, 17 April 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.66.196.7 (talk • contribs) .

In light of the EXHAUSTING detail in the main article, the cult terminology debate is peculiar in its omission. Right or wrong, the association of JW's with the word cult does exist. I'm sure the issue could be addressed appropriately, most likely in a sub page. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snazzerly (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 April, 2006.

[Melanie} - Some define sect to mean a group that has broken away from an established religion. Others apply the term to a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher. The term is usually used in a derogatory way. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not an offshoot of some church but include persons from all walks of life and from many religious backgrounds. They do not look to any human, but rather to Jesus Christ, as their leader.

A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual. Many cults follow a living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society. The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God’s Word, and Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society. They live and work in the midst of other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.166.68 (talk • contribs) 09:31, June 1, 2006

Nice cut-and-paste from the Reasoning book. So much for self-expression.--Jeffro77 21:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot represent just the JW view of orthodoxy, sects or cults. It can only present the corresponding viewpoints in an encyclopedic manner. - CobaltBlueTony 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Cobaltbluetony says about Wikipedia's take on orthodoxy et al. I have to agree that the word cult does have a rather loaded connotation such that using it as a definitive in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses would be inappropriate and pushing POV, regardless of applicability or lack thereof. That said, I think Snazzerly has a point insofar as that in many sects of Christianity, sects with "heretical" views are denoted as cults. This nomer has been used numerous times with regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses and probably ought to be addressed somewhere and maybe referenced on the main page.

Before tossing out a suggestion of my own as far as a descriptor, I would have to point out that, from the orthodox view of any segment of Christianity that accepts the Nicene Creed (including Catholics, Anglicans, Presbetyrians, and most others), the views of the JW's are heretical... and because the membership of the aforementioned groups does number in excess of 1 billion, it is probably safe to say that the issue does need to be addressed, albeit in a NPOV fashion.

As far as the word sect is concerned, I think it to be an appropriate usage with regards for to the Jehovah's Witnesses insofar as, by Merriam-Webster, a sect is:

1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical

b : a religious denomination.

Now, the question arises as to whether or not the word "sect" is POV-driven in and of itself. I'm going to argue that common American English usage doesn't assign too much connotative value to sect, and that it's probably the best word available. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Vengeful Cynic 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[Melanie] I made a comment earlier. Interestingly noted that it was a quote from The Reasoning Book however, that is a reference work as is this & therefore I didn't think there would be any problem with this. Twas my first comment I've ever dared mention on here anyways but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. I still don't think it really merits mentioning in an article although some people feel it should. I feel that it is an offensive term personally & put's the Jehovah's Witnesses on a parr with people who are extreme, and although the preaching work is talking to ones who may not be interested, at least people are given a chance to listen to the message that the bible commands christian's to preach. I just think people should be careful when explaining something liek a religious group, or any group of peolpe's belief's to people who are looking for guidance & not looking for people's slanted views. Enough self-expression in there for you???

Header/FAQ section for talk page?

In light of Josh's retrieval of that rehash discussion, perhaps we could put forth the effort to maintain a permanent section of the consensus of editors for past issues, which would link to specific sections in the archived discussion pages. This way, it would serve as kind of a FAQ for someone who wanted to bring up a point that had already been decided on. They could then read the discussion to determine if their point had already been discussed before deciding to bring it up again. And we certainly wouldn't discourage them from discussing pervious point as tehy may have new ideas or perspectives; we would simply be asking them to review our progress beforehand.

Thoughts?

CobaltBlueTony 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an intelligent idea.George 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Publishing Languages

The article states that Jehovah's Witnesses publish their literature in 410 languages. There is no citation for this figure, and even with a citation, the figure is still misleading. Not to diminish their publishing efforts, but it should not be implied that all of their literature is available in that number of languages, since many of them are only represented by a very small amount of available literature.--Jeffro77 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps stating that they "publish literature in 410 languages" is less likely to imply what you see, than they "publish their literature," which does kinda suggest the whole body of work, as opposed to selected material. - CobaltBlueTony 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to qualify it with something like, "much of their literature is published in x languages, while a small selection of literature is available in y languages." Any thoughts?--Jeffro77 13:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "They currently publish literature in up to 410 languages." The problem with "x" is that there really is no "x", while at the moment "y" may be definite, it is likely to change more than once this year as well.George 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Theologian

In the sentence "Knorr's Vice-President Frederick William Franz became the leading theologian," I have reservations about the usage of the word "theologian." I'm not even sure what it is about its usage here, but something about it rubs me the wrong way. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? - CobaltBlueTony 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly common to use such terminology in secular media. For example, a recent Associated Press article referred to Fred Franz as "chief theologian":

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/27/special_reports/religion/18_25_301_26_06.txt

Cardinal Ratzinger was similarly styled "chief theologian" under John Paul II. Dtbrown 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A very common term to describe his function. I can understand from a JW perspective why the word would bother you, but having said that, from a secularist perspective I believe its quite correct. joshbuddy^talk 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for australian government legislation quote needed

The following quote needs a source. Also it seems a consensus on where to put it is needed. "The Jehovah's Witnesses are often at odds with medical and medicolegal doctrine because of their no-transfusion stance. For example, throughout Australia there is legislation allowing for children (those under 18) to receive blood transfusion without the consent of the child or his/her parents, if a doctor considers it to be necessary."

Ansell 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would fit in the section on blood in the critical views of Witness beliefs and practices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Blood_2

The original location was in the section that presented the JW view. Dtbrown 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV forking

POV forking is not NPOV. Why are criticism section filled with non criticism such as gambling. Why are there nearly three different sections dealing with critics? Why crticism of JW has been forked out to "two" sister articles? Why theological criticism of JW linked to persecution of JW, covertly implying that all critics of JW are invalid or unjust. And where is the section of prophecies made by early JW, which didn't turn out to be true? FWBOarticle

By all means, go ahead and clean up something in the criticisms section that isn't satisfactory. I threw it together very hastily, with the intent it would be refined and expanded. I think both the first section of the article, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses all adequately cover their "false prophesies". joshbuddy^talk 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How come i do not see any "Critical views on Beliefs and Practices" on any other article about religion? Parts of this article are becoming biased. CST 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Naturtrina

Could someone else have a look at the second set of three reverts that this user has made to this page, as well as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah's Witnesses controversy. They are not with any communication. He simply comes onto the page and reverts to a previous version. Ans e ll 03:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the gist of what Naturtrina was doing to the lead in text. joshbuddy^talk 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if you have to restore the consensus gist of the first paragraph again, but due to 3RR on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures the user has been blocked for 24 hrs. So you wont have huge reverts to ancient versions for a little while. Hopefully they will participate here to explain themselves and we can start integrating their ideas into a consensus. Ans e ll 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone should checkuser the guy, it's likely he is, or is affiliated with, the indefinately banned user:Tommstein or user:Central. Duffer 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that somewhat unlikely. Naturtrina seems to be advocating a more pro-bible student tone in the article. joshbuddy^talk 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies for supporting either assumption regarding the user's motivations/ possible true identity. No need to treat differently than any other POV editor: assist editor to learn to align to NPOV, or continue to revert edits based on NPOV standards as we (meaning you) have been doing. - CobaltBlueTony 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, if 62.128.202.55 is a friend of Naturtinas? Dtbrown 01:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

See [1] for more information about this. Ans e ll 01:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Love of Wisdom

I for one, am thankful for the information age - when people can look at everything for themselves. There are many parts of Wikipedia that are a little slanted, but this article I believe has been done justice. Media bias is rampant - people with agendas for this and that. I'm truely worried about the time when all this is rewritten by those in control - those rewritting history. Defend history, and words - newspeak of 1984 is everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.153.83.138 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting at least. Ans e ll 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to others, it seems that all of the bugs have been worked out of the opening page. However, I definetely side with freedom of speech. But in an encyclopedia, there is no room for biased opinions of others, only factual statements should exist. Possibly having a neutral party write the article would solve the problem. Amanda

Reproof

It seems this paragraph could use some work. All judicial cases involve "reproof". Sometimes the person is disfellowshipped and at other times the elders have felt that the reproof just given is enough. see km 3/75 p. 4 Question Box While the par. in question does not say a judicial meeting (which it probably should, including possibly transferring info on repentance from the paragraph below dealing with disfellowshipping) the info is in regards to one. Not all judicial committees are 1) before onlookers and not all have a 2) public announcement. Therefore reproof is not always before onlookers. Some reproof is private. See OM p. 146 where it can be before onlookers OR private. In addition in ALL cases of judicial reproof, Restrictions are imposed. Organized to Do Jehovah's Will p.152 ("In all cases"). The elders may choose different restrictions. Thus as the article stands it has inaccurate statements. Johanneum 12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Counsel is not necessarily linked to reproof. Reproof is also a kind of rebuke. Counsel is offered in instances where reproof is not deemed necessary (such as a repentant attitude, or innocence). - CobaltBlueTony 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reproof itself is given before "all onlookers". Of course, in practice, this means that it is given before everyone who knows about the issue at hand. Of course, in cases of private reproof, the only people involved are the elders and the wrong doer(s) (such as a married couple). If the issue is considered well known, then its given publicly. If known to a small group, I believe they are typically brought in and the reproof is given there. You are correct, reproof is always given with restrictions

As for disfellowshipping vs reproof, the only difference is the determination of repentance. I will attempt to clean up this section right now. I found this a very difficult section to write (when I did) because I was having a tough time tracking down statements which were very exact. I didn't think to use the OJ book, so, an excellent reference I think. Thanks for bringing this to my (and our) attention. joshbuddy^talk 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that what is written in their own "law books" is not exactly what actually happens during a committee meeting. The elders are given certain restrictions that they should follow, however that is not always the case. Disfellowshipping (always public) frequently happens to repentant people and reproof (private or public) frequently happens to those who are unrepentant. Much like in the case of priest molesting children. All priest know it is a sin and against the church "laws" to molest children, however we all know how frequently molestation still occurs in the catholic church. This is also one of Jehovah's Witnesses unspoken "truths".

If you feel the critical section does not contain enough info about this, please add it in. joshbuddy^talk 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ISBN of "In Search of Christian Freedom"

It seems that both the edited number and the previous one were wrong. The Library of Congress online catalog lists the ISBN here: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=In+Search+of+Christian+freedom&Search_Code=TALL&PID=6935&SEQ=20060421100257&CNT=25&HIST=1 - CobaltBlueTony 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Congregational discipline section

I've added in the side article, and I'd really like to see the section (especially the section on disfellowshipping) greatly reduced and cleaned up. If anyone feels like doing that, please do. I will take a stab later if no one gets to it. And content can be preserved in the side article now, so I believe it should all be good. joshbuddy^talk 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted

Hot of the Uncyclopedia.org press:

UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted

If you can't laugh about yourself, who can you laugh about? :) Hope you all enjoy.Travb 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Martenitsa

Are JW's forbidden of following the Bulgarian tradition of Martenitsa or the Romanian Mărţişor? Why?

Any holiday that might be viewed as having pagan origins will be strongly discouraged. Though in a recent Awake Mag(Asleep mag ha ha) it mentions the Pinyata which actualy does have pagan origins but seems acceptible. In the past even games like chess was discouraged as it had pagan/war/religious ties. generaly anything the might discourage your "brother" is considered bad. That festival may fall into that category. But as it is loosely related to a seasonal(harvest planting) event... usualy pagan ties(in the bible it says you must not worship or make a graven image from anything in heaven or on earth(read: earth itself)), so it would be playing iwth fire to attempt that tradition.

PISSED

i had many links reguarding PROOF of masonry influence reguarding both Russel & JW's i dont know who took my EVIDENCE and LINKS out - but i'm just going to do a much better, bigger and far BETTER job.

I might go as far as to make a list of what the church has done to those who have campaigned against it. I am a far, far bigger voice than you'd imagine - thanks for reminding me to do things right. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, May 4, 2006

(CBT's comments were moved from the anon user's talk page to this discussion page.)

Everybody's a critic

Your edits to the main Jehovah's Witnesses page were out of context, in that there is already a page dedicated to Charles Taze Russell. Your exhaustive points should go there, and not in the main article, which is already nearly bursting at the seams.

You're certainly welcome to provide verifiable independent sources for your case per the Wikipedia policies WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV. Be careful to be objective, even with such a strong viewpoint as yours. and above all, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I hope you can present your case without lacing it with your own slant.

Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

P,

(A)There are a lot of people who are "Russelites" but not JW's; these may be the person(s) you are dealing with.

(B)Before assuming negativity and taking an attitude that could eventually result in being banned, perhaps you should slow down and ask for help first.

(C)Finding out who took your links away is as easy as looking at the history of the page in question. George 20:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced?

I see over 150 footnotes. Perhaps an editor/editors added them all after being tagged in response? Whatever the case, I think that the article is very well-sourced and am removing that tag. Good job, whoever! Novel-Technology 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, hmm, I would remove the tag if it would let me. Going to have to look into this.... Novel-Technology 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, got it taken care of except for one thing. There is one tagged statement that probably should in fact be documented or deleted. It is this statement:

"Note: Several children of Jehovah's Witness and baptised Jehovah's Witnesses and those associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, have died from receiving blood transfusions against their will. { {fact} }"

Even if supported with documentation, perhaps it still should be softened to "may have" or "likely have". Or deleting the statement altogether would not be inconceivable as it seems pretty non-essential to the article. So get that taken care of, delete the { {fact} } tag, and you'll be out of that category. Which will be a good thing, as there's a large backlog of articles in there. Oh, I just saw a gramatical problem with the sentence too. I guess I'll fix the sentence, and someone else fix the reference, if in fact there is one. If not, delete it.Novel-Technology 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adventists?

This article lists 1873 and 1874 as dates for the end of the world according to the Adventists. Yet the page on Adventists says 1844. I'm confused... 24.4.112.227 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Is this the "most referenced article ever to appear on Wikipedia"? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised. Knuckles sonic8 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

'Believe' vs. 'are taught'

I changed 'believe' to 'are taught' in the disfellowshipping section for a key reason. Many Witnesses do not at all feel comfortable applying the strict sanctions to once-close friends, nor do they feel that associating with them would create any problems. I will be changing it back if there is not good reason.--Jeffro77 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, are you in close contact with "many JW's"? where do you get this information? You are the one who must supply proof of your assertion, not me. I am an active JW. NOTE: You should not use websties run by former JW's as proof; they are former JW's. George 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, don't talk down to me. I have indeed been in close contact with many JWs, but my personal life is obviously none of your business. I have seen a lot of Witnesses continue to have close association with disfellowshipped relatives (living outside the family home). You've probably even seen the same yourself. For a written example though, see the Kingdom Ministry, August 2002, page 4, paragraph 13 - a 'fleshly™' brother and sister had remained like humans to their mother until an assembly where they were taught that they should be shunning mummy to guilt her back into the 'Truth™'. So it is more appropriate to say that Witnesses 'are taught' that disfellowshipping is beneficial, because obviously, not all are convinced.--Jeffro77 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems I have with the edit are:

(1)That it did not need to be changed to present a more accurate description.

(2)While some may not stick to the 'doctrine' 100%, I find it unlikely that the majority ignore it. ('Many' is a very subjective term.)

(3)The entire subject is anecdotal and has not been researched to my knowledge. (In fact it would be quite difficult to do so.)

These lead me to beleive that the edit was not just in the interest of accuracy but was also motivated by a need to add some negativity to a subject you may find offensive. George 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Using "are taught" rather than "believe" is not negative, and is more accurate because it covers the situation correctly regardless of whether it is few or many that do not agree with the doctrine. "believe" implies that "none" disagree with the doctrine, which is erroneous.--Jeffro77 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro any Witness might believe different than what they are taught on ANY subject. Should we change all the believes to "are taught"? Is this a resonable thing to do? Consistency is appreciated. Besides, Certainly if one can be Disfellowshipped for believing differently, it could be argued that they are not real Witnesses anyway. If a Witnesses has to believe what they are taught then .... Johanneum 12:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A related issue to Witnesses' attitude toward disfellowshipped ones is the fact that Witness who associate with disfellowshipped ones can themselves be disfellowshipped. For this rule to have been created, there must intrinsically be a significant number of Witnesses who would otherwise choose to continue association with disfellowshipped ones. Ergo, a significant number do not 'believe' that they should cease all contact with disfellowshipped ones. Also, when a person is disfellowshipped, there is usually a 'local needs' talk on why it is important to shun disfellowshipped people. If it were the case that Witnesses already believe that they should not associate with disfellowshipped, such 'timely' counsel would not be required.--Jeffro77 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Field Service self-reported

Someone deleted the fact that Witnesses' Field Service is self-reported. Why should that fact be hidden?--Jeffro77 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hidden???? what does that mean? I deleted the two sentences that were recently added. The one in question surely can be restore if deemed necessary. Johanneum 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

'Hidden' is an adjective meaning 'obscured from view' or 'unrevealed'. Almost all Witnesses at least know of someone who has inflated their hours, but I'm willing to leave it out because I can't reference it, because I don't know of anyone who's bothered to write it anywhere 'official'. On the other point though (self-reporting) and more generally, people are a bit quick on this article to just delete stuff they don't like, even when they know very well that not only is the comment true, but usually verifiable as well.--Jeffro77 02:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Knocking documentary

I'm sure most of you are already aware of the documentary Knocking, which has been in production for about five years now. I've just had the privilege of seeing a final edited copy of the documentary nearly how it will be aired on PBS sometime this year or next. I highly recommend it to all here as it was very well done in my opinion. A few important bits of Joseph Kempler's story were left out for time (I've heard Kempler speak before and was present during parts of Knocking's filming), but beyond that it's a worthwhile view. From what I've been told, it should be available on DVD fairly shortly (my understanding is that the final edits are finished and the photography for the DVD cover was done about two weeks ago). Anyway, hope you fine folks will enjoy it... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-21 04:10Z

Disfellowshipping for belief - revisited

Yes, this old chestnut again. Whilst some of the Witness contributors might like it said that no-one is ever shunned for disagreeing with Witness doctrines unless they try to share their ideas with others, that is just not the case in the real world. For an absolute fact, people do get disfellowshipped, or disassociated (by the elders without the individual's instruction or permission), for persisting to disagree with Witness doctrines, and in practice, there is absolutely no requirement that they have shared their concerns (usually labelled by the Witnesses as "apostate teachings") with others. A Witness in that position can't just stop being a JW and retain friendships like normal humans do. They will either be harassed by the elders until they accede to such doctrines against their own conscience, or they will be shunned.--Jeffro77 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No denial that it has be done. Franz seems to make that clear. However such is not the policy. One needs to advocate it in some way. Even if this is not a verbal promotion but a course of life. For example, sharing in worship of a different religion.

I know that's the policy on paper, but not in real life. And not just with Franz.--Jeffro77 06:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Express" is what has been rendered in the main article under "# 4.9.3 Disfellowshipping" after much work,debate etc. IF it is even necessary to have it again then it can be expressed the same. Why have the same point twice any way? The article is long enough. Johanneum 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think there needs to be some clean up between the "disfellowshipping" section and the "critical view of disfellowshipping" section generally. The latter is there specifically to indicate concerns that have been raised with the practice, and therefore it should not be 'polished' with what seem like quotes from Watchtower articles, nor should it be a mirror of the main 'disfellowshipping' section.--Jeffro77 06:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How will anyone know a person disagrees unless they express it? George 15:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't toy with semantics. Obviously a Witness might express their doctrinal concerns to an elder, which is not the same as promoting them in the congregation, but can still result in shunning regardless of whether the person makes any attempt whatsoever to share their ideas with general members of the congregation.--Jeffro77 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter your personal views on this, proper sourcing must still be adhered to. And please don't restart hostilities with loaded statements like the one in your opening sentence. It's entrirely possible to have a balanced disagreement and be sufficiently represented without insulting or talking down to one another. - CobaltBlueTony 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't restart hostilities by being hostile in a conversation that did not involve you. There was no 'loaded statement'. There was a reply to toying with semantics with the word 'express', contrasting the concepts of mentioning a doctrinal concern to the elders with spreading discordant views among general members of the congregation. If George thought I was being hostile, then he is welcome to let me know.--Jeffro77 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an open forum. I saw no 'toying with semantics'; that is your viewpoint, which came off as hostile to me as someone who holds views very similar to George's, and does not appear to assume good faith, specifically that George's statement was sincere and direct. Your statement could potentially ignite hostilities because you seem to jump right to a negative and unproductive assumption as to his motivation. It is difficult to find a "nice" tone to your statement, so with that I am asking you to simply give editors with whom you disagree the benefit of the doubt, and try to view things from his vantage point -- a recommendation of WP:NPOV, in fact.

Additionally, my concern for proper sourcing remains relevant. I am prepared to accept your desire to elucidate "unofficial" practices, while disturbing to me, as long as reliable sourcing is followed. Certainly you can understand the suspicious nature with which Wikipedia and its editors hold online forums, bulletin boards, and personal websites. With a duly published work, at least, there's at least some effort to substantiate one's claims or research. If my preemptive statement seems hostile to you, I apologize; nevertheless, I feel I have a valid point, and poignant to make before new material is added.

The allegations you wish to present do disturb me, but not merely for some bad "PR" my faith might receive. It is because, if these events occur with even half of the voracity you purport, I find it morally reprehensible and even condemnable. However, such a discussion does not belong here. - CobaltBlueTony 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77--Whilst some of the Witness contributors might like it said that no-one is ever shunned for disagreeing with Witness doctrines unless they try to share their ideas with others, that is just not the case in the real world...A Witness in that position can't just stop being a JW and retain friendships like normal humans do. They will either be harassed by the elders until they accede to such doctrines against their own conscience, or they will be shunned

While this could occur, it is undocumented and anecdotal. Persons who persistently reject a teaching do not keep quiet about it. It takes itme for a person to develop the frame of mind to speak out. If they spoke to the elders ahead of time attempts would be made to 'readjust' the brother (generic term) before any 'disciplinary' action could even take place. Some times no disciplinary action can take place. In the instances I know of people stop attending meetings and either start going to another church or go to no church. They avoid all contact with the elders or former friends. (JW's)

It seems rather grand of you to take the stand that this is undocumented and anecdotal. I think it would be more accurate to say there is no evidence that you are aware of. Though you have painted a somewhat idealized view of the process, in reality, and in documented cases, this mechanism does not work as stated in print. (Like many policies of many organizations) I chose the working express after some discussion around it. Certainly, expressing doubts to simply the elders, could result in disfellowshipping. The wording was sufficiently couched in my opinion to cover all contingencies. joshbuddy^talk 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77--For an absolute fact, people do get disfellowshipped, or disassociated (by the elders without the individual's instruction or permission)

I disagree, a person will not be disfellowshipped without being present at a judicial hearing. However the elders do not need the offender's permission to disfellowship.

George 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is hypothetical, however I know for a fact that it has happened.--Jeffro77 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, When using TM tags and words such as 'harrassed by the elders'. You reveal a combative state of mind. This makes your edits suspect in my mind. George 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I occasionally use ™ as a humorous reference to terms that are either given special meaning by JWs, or that have become cliché among them. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I know of Witnesses in good standing who have referred to themselves as being "harrassed by the elders" over certain issues, who otherwise respect their position. Do not try to apply bias to such comments.--Jeffro77 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt to apply bias, it was inferred due to the nature of the comments. They appear to be attempts at a sly insult. The tags were used in conjuction with a command from you not to 'talk down to you'. I don't feel 'harassed' when counseled myself, I don't always like it, but I think about it and make adjustments regardless. Anyway, we cannot use ancedotal information to make edits. George 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the elder's instructions on judicial committees were clear. People can be tried in absentia by a judicial committee. People can "disassociate" themselves by their actions, without any need for an intervening meeting. joshbuddy^talk 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While this may be true I have consistently viewed individuals not being disfellowshipped becuase of a lack of contact. If there is only one witness or the matter is unable to be resolved without the person being present, there can be no disfellowshipping. In the case of teaching opposing 'doctrine' there are quite likely going to be multiple witnesses. No pun intended.George 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a further point here, that different witnesses to different events can be used to establish a "pattern", such as two different witnesses to two different events. As well, I believe that doubts expressed in writing can be used as a sort of "two witnesses" against the accused. joshbuddy^talk 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

After my eyes stopped bleeding, because of the dizzying array of awkwardly indented replies, I thought of a couple of (anecdotal) incidents with which I am familiar.

1. A young brother left his parents and the organization, but without contact, he could not be disfellowshipped. Rumors flew left and right as to his standing and conduct, but only when he turned up in a Florida jail for attempted murder charges was his past course of events revealed. His parents even brought in his criminal records (of their own volition), but because he was never convicted of any of them (he was apparently the companion of his older half-brother with a much more substantiated criminal record), he could not be disfellowshipped. He offered in his own defense that he himself never committed any of the acts with which he had been charged, and that since his half-brother was not a Witness, he was under no obligation to inform the elders of these actions. He also did not recant his faith, even though he's since married out of the faith and wears a full beard and never attends any meetings, even the Memorial.
2. The brother of an elder, and father to a family once looked up to as model Witnesses, left his family after his wife cheated on him. He's rumored to be living with another woman in the city, and possibly has fathered other children, but his residence is unknown, and he refuses to meet with elders, nor discuss his situation. Since I was caretaker for his 'anointed' father at the time, I was informed by his elder brother what his apparent situation was, that all the elders familiar with him think he should be disfellowshipped, but because he won't meet with them, and remains unlocatable, they cannot disfellowship him. Only in certain special circumstances can they inform other individual Witnesses about his brother's circumstances, as in my case, where I would have to have direct contact with him on a biweekly basis, when he came to visit his father. My choice, accepted by the elders, was to allow myself civilized non-spiritual contact with him as necessary.

- CobaltBlueTony 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Rutherford to ingratiate Jehovah's Witnesses to the new Nazi

This is not accurate even though Penton in his latest book is now promoting it too. Please see "Persecution and Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses During the Nazi-Regime 1933-1945" edited by Historian Hans Hesse see comments below:

In the third revised edition of his book Zwischen Widerstand und Martyeriun: Die Zeugen Jehovas im "Dritten Reich" (Munich 1997), Detlef Garbe corrects the false statement that swastika flags were used during the Berlin convention on June 25, 1933, and that the national anthem was sung, as was originally spread by opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately, other historians also accepted this assertion uncritically. The assertion that the leading individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses had attempted to “ingratiate" themselves with the Nazi regime in 1933, received more publicity through a book entitled Die Zeugen Jehovas: Eine Dokumentation uber die Wachtturm-Gesellschaft published by Manfred Gebhard with Urania-Verlag in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1970, and, surprisingly, published shortly thereafter in a licensed West German edition.This “documentation" calls the June 25, 1933 assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses in Berlin-Wilmersdorf; an “antisemitic and pro-fascist convention.” It accuses the Wachtturm-Gesellschaft of "an unconscious falsification of the actual facts,” and asserts that Watch Tower directors first turned against Hitler in 1938, only after all attempts to reach a political compromise with Hitler had failed, and that they “drove their innocent fellow believers into Nazi prisons and concentration camps.” Similar accusations can be found in church literature against Jehovah's Witnesses for years now. The authors adopt an ideological position similar to the Urania book, overlooking what Detlef Garbe describes: “This book, published under the name of Manfred Gebhard, but compiled by anonymous authors with the assistance of the Ministry for State Security, clearly takes prescribed ideological conclusions into account” and is characterized by a “selective use of sources”and “distorted quotations.”. (The work was commissioned by the GDR, where Jehovah’s Witnesses had been persecuted for ideological reasons and where more than 5,000 of them had been arrested, of whom at least 60 died. Many victims who died in the GDR had already been persecuted and incarcerated by the Nazis!) Unfortunately, Gebhard's conclusions have been “uncritically espoused, in part, even today”, as Detlef Garbe explains. Many professional historians still use Gebhard's biased book; this is proven by their source citations. Manfred Gebhard later expressly disassociated himself from this book and its “exaggerations and falsifications” (Garbe). In a letter dated January 2, 1985, to Dieter Pape in Berlin, who had obviously worked as a ghost writer on the book, Manfred Gebhard stated: “I have already stated elsewhere that my role in the Urania book was mainly as editor (which is not identical to author). I let you know this, as you are frankly also concerned. Based on what I know today, I would not give my name for it again. (sic) I am accusing you of distorting history (probably because of the Worst kind of toadying to your bosses). ... But also your citations on “anti- Communism” also seem questionable to me." Johanneum 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of both Rutherford's anti-semitism and the 1933 Declaration of facts, which carries an anti-semitic tone. I don't think its a leap to include this, as Penton's book documents this pretty well. At the very least, information about Rutherford's anti-semitic stance could and quite possibly should be included. joshbuddy^talk 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For purposes of reference, I've duplicated -- temporarily -- the July 8, 1998 Awake! article on pages 12-14 which addresses concerns raised above. - CobaltBlueTony 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the stuff about Nazi flags and songs at a particular JW assembly is not worth mentioning. However, the stuff that surrounds the 1933 “Declaration of Facts” is noteworthy. First, there is the letter sent to Hitler that accompanied the Declaration:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jwhitler.eng

Copy of original letter in German below:

http://www.bible.ca/jw-hitler-page1.gif http://www.bible.ca/jw-hitler-page2.gif http://www.bible.ca/jw-hitler-page3.gif

Here is the “Declaration of Facts” resolution:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/declfact.txt

and how it was presented in the 1934 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

The rhetoric in both documents is bothersome to me in its support of stereotypical views of Jewish people and the attempt to sound pro-German. The Awake! article omits some of the worst statements and does not reference the cover letter which was sent to Hitler. This information can only be stretched so far but it should not be entirely discounted. Dtbrown 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral sources are preferable to former Witnesses who may or may not have their own agenda. For example, Dr. Gabriele Yonan, Religious Scientist, Free University, Berlin: stated "When the entire text of the June 25, 1933 'Declaration of Facts,' along with the letter to Hitler is, in retrospect, put into the context of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Nazi regime, their resistance, and the Holocaust, it consequently has nothing to do with 'antisemitic statements and currying favor with Hitler.' These accusations made by today's church circles are deliberate manipulations and historical misrepresentations, and their obvious motivation is the discomfort of a moral inferiority. At the time of the convention [of Jehovah's Witnesses in Berlin, on June 25, 1933], as well as later, governments, statesmen, and diplomats from all countries negotiated with Hitler and demonstrated their respect and reverence for him. In 1936, even when thousands had already been imprisoned in concentration camps-among the first of whom were Jehovah's Witnesses-the international Olympic Games took place in Berlin under the swastika." - "Am mutigsten waren immer wieder die Zeugen Jehovas." Verfolgung und Widerstand der Zeugen Jehovas im Nationalsozialismus, published by historian Hans Hesse, Bremen, 1998, page 395.Johanneum 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, I did nothing else than provide the documents and you refer to "former Witnesses who may or may not have their own agenda." And how are we to know that the source you cite is "neutral"? At very best, your source says that the Letter to Hitler and the "Declaration of Facts" has to be "put into ... context." To put what can be perceived as negative information "into context" can be another word for revisionism. History is never that simple. There are always positives and negatives that make up the whole. Even the 1974 Yearbook speaks of some who felt the Declaration was inadequate. Isn't that an indication there was a problem with it? Now, too much can be made of this and probably has been made of it. But, to ignore it on the basis of "context" is also wrong. Is it possible for the editors here (both JW and non-JW) to grapple with this? 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Sorry about the confusion. I was referring to "Penton." I could have inserted the above else where. You are correct that there is and was much controversy about that time. I appreciate your balanced stance. Johanneum 12:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To add another view on this subject, here is one German perspective:

http://home.zonnet.nl/rsingelenberg/Hessereview.html

which includes a discussion on the "Declaration of Facts." 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Dtbrown 06:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to say that JW's in general at that time were anti-semites. Just that Rutherford specifically was, and it was he who wrote the Declaration, and as well other anti-semitic comments in the Watchtower. But I defer to someone who knows more about the subject that I do. I don't think, however, we can take the watchtower's official history at face value. There are too many inaccuracies. joshbuddy^talk 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for it, but I wonder what the "innaccuracies" are? George 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of why a discussion of how accurate the official history is would be out of place here. It would seem very pertinent to purpose of this article. Off the top of my head, 1925, and its impact on the number of memorial partakers is completely false in the proclaimers (JV) book. Penton, in his latest edition of Apocalypse Delayed outlined some of the issues with the proclaimers book. I can't really speak to a whole lot of specifics, I tend to research these items on a case by case basis. But certainly as well, there are many glaring omissions in the official WT history as well. Rutherford's alcoholism is completely absent from any of the history presented by the WT, and regrettably, from all the articles here. I intend to add it at some point, but it must be done very delicately. joshbuddy^talk 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do any of said claims come from individuals not disenfranchised from the organization, or otherwise have a notable vocalized aversion to the leadership structure therein? I highly doubt you'll find an individual saying, "I believe this organization is sincere and has God's blessing, except for that drunk Rutherford." Such vocal and inflammatory criticism of one individual or aspect is rarely isolated. Even with proper sourcing, I find it improbable that you'll be able to state it for a fact; only that dissenters claim Rutherford was an alcoholic. - CobaltBlueTony 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see relevancy in focusing on who claimed it, simply if their statements are verifiable or not, and if the evidence presented is credible. There are third party sources, with no vested interest in whether JW's are right or wrong you can testify to Rutherford's drinking problem. As far as I know, JW's have never refuted Rutherford's drinking problem. joshbuddy^talk 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy would be in looking for patterns of criticism from specific types of individuals. If these kinds of claims come solely or predominantly from individuals or groups with an apparent or stated agenda against Witnesses, then additional scrutiny should be given to these claims, to see if they stand up against charges of ulterior motive. To be fair, being biased doesn't make said claims automatically wrong, but experience on my part dictates closer scrutiny.

I can understand why this would be a matter of concern, both to Witnesses and curious non-Witnesses alike, but I've heard alot of allegations against my faith, and this is really the first place I've ever read about Rutherford having issues with alcohol. So I hope you'll understand if I give the sources extra attention. - CobaltBlueTony 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely Rutherford is not the only person or issue you have a problem with? Could you please be specific as to innacurracies? The subject of innacuracy by its very nature requires specific information.George 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest consulting Apocalypse Delayed if you want specifics. Was there a specific issue or person you were looking for more information about? Was there a point you wanted more information or confirmation of? Are you merely defending a certain point of view? If there is any way I can help, let me know. joshbuddy^talk 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any inaccurracies, so I wanted to know your reasoning and sources. I have come across a lot of information on the internet that claimed lies, deceit, etc. Haven't found anything I researched that stood up to the light. Perhaps this is a POV issue for us. Thanks anyway George 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the 1925 one in the proclaimers book is both pretty easy to find, and pretty easy to verify as to it being inaccurate. I believe the proclaimers book claims that after the failure of 1925, not many left. This is completely false. As well, the proclaimer book neglects to mention many significant events in the history of JWs. Both of those are off the top of my head, and you're really better off consulting books as a source then some random internet site. joshbuddy^talk 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

- While we are talking about true history please consider the following. The Famous British historian, David Irving will give you the true facts about the holocaust. http://www.fpp.co.uk It really did not happen the way you believe and were taught. The Holocaust is more a myth! Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad December 14, 2005 said "Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country." http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm Rev. Dr. Robert Countess a prominent revisionist historian Countess spoke out against popular conceptions of the Holocaust, as he believed that although Adolf Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe he did not order their extermination, the Germans had no gas chambers at all their concentration camps and that the number of Jews that died throughout World War II was not six million, but between several hundred thousand and one and a half million. He served as a spokesman for CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust), and often raised objections to specific claims made about the Holocaust. ETC. Fact or Myth? Which is true? This Historian or that? Perphaps there were no purple triangles either. :-) Johanneum 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Archaeological evidence of gas chambers found by both the Allied forces and the Soviet armies would testify dramatically to only one side of such an argument. - ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Critical Views of Beliefs

Jeffro77, you keep moving the critical views section to below Controversy. Critical views was created as a counter-balance to the beliefs sections, and as such, I thought it should really stay with that section. I'm not really sure why you keep moving it down. Care to elaborate? joshbuddy^talk 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I "keep moving" the section. I moved it yesterday. When else did I move it? Proper article structure is not determined by keeping people happy by 'counter-balancing' what is stated about beliefs, it is determined by logic. Information relating to critical views belongs with the controversy section.--Jeffro77 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you moved it twice already, and instead of getting into an edit war I thought it would be more valuable to talk about it. Sorry if i misattributed that action to you. I think there are arguments for both sides here, but if you're going to move it down, then i think you need to fix the heading levels so that its actually included in the section, not simply re-order it. (just my opinion)

I did modify the heading levels rather than just rearranging it.--Jeffro77 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to lump together controversy with criticism, as they are different, though there is certainly overlap. joshbuddy^talk 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, is criticism a subset of controversy? I would disagree with that. Any other opinions? joshbuddy^talk 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words and new paragraph in criticisms of field service

Though the new paragraph might be true, its attributed to anonymous critics. It should either be attributed to a real person or removed. joshbuddy^talk 13:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the sentence about how Witnesses have done a lot to help after hurricane Katrina.--Jeffro77 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The page about weasel words gives exemptions for using such phrases:

When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."
When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

Based on these principles, and on the fact that critical views of field service is the specific focus of the section, the statement made is valid within Wikipedia rules.--Jeffro77 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All weasel words should be eliminated. This one just caught my eye when i was looking at a diff. I don't think this falls under the exception discussed at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The topic is field service, not critics themselves. And at any rate, the statements about field service need to be supported by some sort of citation. If they are supported by a citation, then someone said or wrote that idea.

If it is common knowledge among a particular group (in this case Witnesses) that an action is known to take place within that group (in this case misreporting field service hours), it should not require a specific citation.--Jeffro77 08:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the things you've picked that would be witness common knowledge, I would say that is one I would not have picked. The reality of common knowledge and the witnesses is that there is little that seems to be common knowledge. It seems to me, from experience, that witnesses are known for three things a) blood b) waking you up on Saturday c) shunning. Just my point my view. joshbuddy^talk 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems you did not properly read what I said: "common knowledge among a particular group". That means Witnesses know it happens among themselves.--Jeffro77 14:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss that bit. This is getting us away from the weasel words complaint. I'll just go fix it myself. joshbuddy^talk 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, in the Weasel words article, the phrase "Critics say ..." is mentioned, and I think we can agree that "Critics say" is sloppy and allows for the insertion of original research rather easily.

I've taken a pass at some of the construction statements which seemed a little nutty to me. joshbuddy^talk 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to cleanup those statements. Let me know what you think. Just as an aside, I certainly don't want to give you a hard time. You already have to deal with scholar, so far be it for me to give you a hard time as well. :) joshbuddy^talk 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This article has gone citation crazy! If any small point is left uncited, it is often deleted (especially if it is viewed by some as unfavourable), rather than simply tagging it for needing a citation (e.g., ^{[citation needed]}). There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that make reference to social concepts that have no formally published citation (see Leet, Calling Fives etc.), so a citation is not required for every single little thing, particularly on behaviour within a sub-culture that is known to be true, but not necessarily published anywhere. Obviously if something is plainly vandalism, it should be removed, but please try to show some discernment.--Jeffro77 08:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)