Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Talk page guidelines

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

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)

E-Watchman Exposed link off-topic?

I would have to say so. What does everyone thing? joshbuddy 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For this article, certainly, however, it does contain one of the easiest to understand summaries of various arguments against the 607 date that I've ever read (despite it's outwardly hostile tone). A note about these resources, during the ongoing Arbitration process I have brought forth in regards to Central and Tommstein one of the admins considered an instance where I deleted a link. This can be found here. Even though the link I deleted is a direct link to not only Witness related forums but also lude jokes and pornography, the link was still acceptable, and my deletion of it is considered WP:POV. Since the Ewatchman Exposed website does contain defenses of Witness doctrine this must be considered in light of the above. I believe it should be kept, as is, in the Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues section for now, if the website develops its content further to encompass more defenses of Witness (not E-watchman) doctrine then it should recieve a promotion to the main Jehovah's Witness article. Duffer 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was an argument FOR 607? Did I read it wrong? (i'm sure you meant for... no matter) At any rate, I agree with you, it seems better on the controversy page. The website itself has the interesting bulletin board though, perhaps the link should be modified to go directly to this board, or the description should be updated to reflect that content (which would be of interest to one learning about JWs) joshbuddy 06:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, it is an argument for 607 but provides consice summaries of opposing arguments. I'm ok with it as is, but I see no problem with a direct link to the forums and/or modified description. Duffer 12:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The 607 article, which actually had a link earlier, was definitely a valid and on-topic link that should have been left intact, as it tackles a diverse array of the arguments both pro- and con- on the Watchtower Society's current stance on the 607BCE date. However, the e-watchman-exposed.co.uk link now goes to that site's front page. At that URL, one must proceed to click on one of the links--and thus seems to be more of a promotional than a factual addition to the links; otherwise, why not just directly link to the 607BCE article? Similarly, the Jehovah Himself Has Become King link originally linked to a front page, rather than to the actual link that made it on-topic and appropriate as a link: it was subsequently edited to link directly to the e-book rather than the front page. If we are looking for consistency, the e-watchman-exposed link should link directly to the pertinent information (607BCE defense), or otherwise demonstrate how it is a resource for the article "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not serve as simply a "personal attack" site (the name pretty much demonstrates its goal, IMO).

As I believe I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure how the link description could be modified to make it actually on-topic. But a suggestion might be "a site that addresses apostate accusations and argumentations." Timothy Kline 16:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a direct link to the 607 article is best, which has already been done on the Controversial Issues Wiki. Duffer 10:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments Cont.

Moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments#Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments Cont. joshbuddy 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is long!! Who archives this stuff?

This talk page has become quite large and with some slower connections takes a long time to load. Is it time to archive it? Who does that around here? Dtbrown 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks to the archiver! Dtbrown 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Me? I created templates to simplify this task in the future. :) joshbuddy 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks alot, I was planning on doing this at the conclusion of Tommstien's arbitration (for evidence link purposes), but the ArbCom pretty much done anyways so.., thanks again. Duffer 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks joshbuddy. I had been doing the archiving, but while I was on wikiholiday, no one seems to have done anything. joshbuddy to the rescue! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

New images in the article

I think the new images in the article make it look much better. Thanks, joshbuddy! Dtbrown 03:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping for belief

Duffer suggests this edit:

Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and subsequently labeled "apostate", this is largely based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken.

You mention it is based on page 2 of the source cited. I went there again and not sure which part you are referring to. Dtbrown 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Page 2 says: "..an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views", "If a baptized Christian adandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented through the faithful and discrete slave and persists in believing other despite scriptural reproof, than he is apostatizing." I do not see any phrase that indicates that there is a qualifier for what is beleived, or to what extant "it is taken." By all means, please explain this. Or is there another reference which you feel leads to the above presented conclusion? I'm not going to shut you down based on one reference.

Just reading the letter again, I see the phrase "reasonably substantial." I took that to mean the persistence in belief to something contrary of what the FDS teaches. Did you feel this related to degree of variation? joshbuddy 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe "reasonably substantial" covers "largely based on the nature of the disagreement" given the context of the page 2 quote. The nature of the disagreement would have to be quite serious to be "reasonably substantial", it also brings out that disfellowshipping is a LAST resort consequence of unresponsiveness to counsel and/or reproof; which I believe adaquately covers "and the extent to which it is taken." Duffer 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum - I'm not trying to say that less significant disagreements won't warrant an inquiry (which is a possibility) I'm trying to disambiguate the statement: "Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped", it is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to actually be disfellowshipped over it. Even the letter itself doesn't explicitly mandate expulsion over a disagreement even in serious cases; specifically quoting from the letter: "..appropriate judicial action should be taken." Appropriate judicial action can include expulsion, but does not necessitate it. Removal of congregational and proselytizing privilages are another form of "judicial action" that may be deemed "appropriate" for the particular circumstance. Duffer 07:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Addendum 2 - I don't feel the line: "Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and subsequently labeled "apostate" adaquately reflects how highly circumstancial such matters are. I believe my addition: "this is largely based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken" properlly qualifies the issue. Duffer 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical events made it very clear that just thinking non-conforming thoughts will lead and has lead to disfellowshipping as occurred in Bethel in 1980. You can read about them here:

http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/11.pdf

http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/12.pdf

This has all been discussed in detail before; so I'm not sure why you are trying again to get the whole severity of the organization's rules watered down to make them look less harsh and more liberal when you know very well that is not the reality. Central 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The personal account of one man (of an alleged incident that took place prior to the date of the source cited in the article) is not a refutation of (in any way) what I have said above. I don't see how it addresses my points regarding the 1980 letters at all. As for further citation of Franz as a source for any argument please see What counts as a reputable publication (as well as Self-published sources). This matter was not sufficiently disgussed previously, it was lost in the mediations and subsequent arbitration. Please do not accuse me of deceit again. Duffer 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of Franz's books and Penton's book contain numerous examples of people being disfellowshipped for disagreeing with doctrinal points. Franz's books pass the hurdle of being a reutable source. Have you read the books incidently? Does your intuition tell you that he making things up, or is exaggerating details? If you haven't read the books, I don't think you are qualified to comment on their veracity. joshbuddy 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But how does that amount to more than hear-say, and what specifically were the circumstances involved in their disfellowshipping? Also, does it contradict what I have written regarding the 1980 Letter? Lets keep on topic here: is what I have written regarding the 1980 letter disputed? If so: why; and how should it effect the outcome of the disputed bullet? I believe splitting the two as I have done below is appropriate, but is the bolded section contested? I believe the 1980 letter justifies the inclusion of the bolded text. Comments?

• Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree on doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and labeled "apostate", such incedants are based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken.[47]
• All members are expected to abide by the doctrines and organizational requirements as determined by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.[48]

Duffer 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "reasonably substantial" part refers more to the nature of the allegations, that is, are the allegations sustainable? Do they come from a reputable source? Is it one person's word vs another? I thought the inclusion of the word "potentially" causes the sentence to be ambiguous enough to satisfy both of us. I mean, there are a whole lot of qualifiers that could be put in there. But is simply a list of beliefs, how much detail do we need to go into? Does not the word "potentially" cover the fact that this is not an absolute thing? That it would vary from case to case, and elder body to elder body? I'm concerned with the brevity and readability of these statements. I find your version, while you may feel is more accurate, difficult to read. Just my opinion.

Re: the letters and franz as a source. If you haven't read the source, or the context in which Franz included them, I'm not sure what sort of argument you want to make against using Franz as a source. The books "feel" true. They have many citations. He publishes corrections. Not sure what more to say about it. joshbuddy 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that "potentially" fully reflects just how circumstantial such incedants are, I feel a qualifier is appropriate, regardless of how it's worded as there's just not enough 'weight' in the word "potentially". I just don't want to see the nuances of Witness practices and theology sacrificed merely for the sake of brevity. To what you said above, I think that your interpretation of "reasonably substantial" can refer to the nature of the allegations as you say, but as part of the overall circumstances that brought about how the disagreement was made known. Was the person trying to actually teach a disagreement, or merely expressing uncertainty in a certain doctrine, or expressing disagreement of an inconsequential belief? These factors (along with the initial allegations) are inherently part of the nature of the circumstances that deem a disagreement: "reasonably substantial". Even in matters where a person is trying to actively teach a disagreement the Elders make repeated, diligent, efforts to persuade/dissuade the individual through exhortation & review of scriptures, revoking of congregational privilages, etc.. before the person is dissfellowshipped (except maybe in cases of clear unresponsiveness and/or disassociation).

Can I have my qualifier? Can we re-word it if it is in need of re-wording?

Re: Franz, I'm not speaking to the veracity of Franzs' (and others') claims, but their appropriateness as authoritative sources in light of Wikipedia's policies: What counts as a reputable publication and Self-published sources. It would be akin to me citing Greg Stafford as an authoritative source on the New World Translation (regardless of how comprehensive his arguments may be). (I'm not speaking about Penton in this, as he is a peer-reviewed historian from what I hear) Duffer 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't consider this rude (as I'm not trying to be) but seeing as you don't want to read his books, and that is your prerogative, then I don't think you're really qualified to comment on its usebility as a source. I'm sure you can appreciate that stand. Ultimately it being self-published is not the only criterion upon which it should be judged.

The qualifier... sigh. I think I have a reasonable compromise. I think you can have your qualifier for the "apostate" label. I don't think the source, however, can sustain a qualifier around being disfellowshipped any more than "potentially" would allow. joshbuddy 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just another note on that page for policies "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Franz's books have met this criterion. Penton references then quite a bit. Penton is a credible third-party publication. joshbuddy 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will desist, though I must note my disagreement. "Potentially" does accomplish the basics of our doctrine, though I personally feel that the word alone does not fully temper the point. Re: Franz: If Penton corroborates Franz on a point then I likely won't protest, but if he merely parrots something that Franz says, then I'd scrutinize the claim more closely, if Franz alone is cited as a source then I will likely question the edit (if it's an edit that is questionable in nature). Duffer 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, these points are also included in Penton's "Apocalypse Delayed" and thst is from the University of Toronto Press. Dtbrown 14:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But which points? What does Penton say? Does it bring forth anything regarding what I have said about the 1980 Letter?Duffer 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read "Apocalypse Delayed"? Its excellent. Actually, I would almost say recommended reading for writing articles on JWs. (After all, Penton himself has written many of the encylopedia articles on JW's in dead tree versions) joshbuddy 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not read his work, nor do I plan to. He is an ex-Witness. As for this dispute, if there is to be further dispute regarding the two things I have added dispute tags to can we please stop RVing and talk it out first? And Central, please stop removing the dispute tags, per WP:V guidelines I not only have the right to add a dispute tag, but to remove the disputed section from the page entirely (by moving it to the talk page for discussion) while consensus is being reached. I don't want to do that (which is why I havn't), I just want consensus. Also, comments on what I have said about the 1980 letters are most welcome, am I wrong in what I have said? Duffer 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to where the letter is cited by Penton. Duffer, I understand your reasons for not reading Penton's book. However, you might enjoy reading White's _A People For His Name_, who was not an ex-Witness. Dtbrown 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If I get around to it I'll look it up, I've heard of (James?) White before, specifically his debate with Greg Stafford, though I've never actually read any of his arguments. Duffer 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a different White. Timothy White was a pseudonym for Anthony Wills who was a Witness (I believe he's deceased now). He had been an English professor at Stanford before writing the book. It's hard to obtain but is easily available through inter-library loan. Dtbrown 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• The solution seems simple take out, "disagree on" and put in "Advocate" or "promote different"... Reference:"Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" P.629Johanneum 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • While I agree with Duffer a change should be made it seems that what has been proposed by him is cumbersome. The issue is not per say “beliefs” but what they do with these beliefs/doctrines. It is promoting, advocating, teaching, declaring, preaching, etc. those Ideas while at the same time claiming to represent the same organization that is at stake. Another words, not the “belief” but the advocating of it which can cause division. See Footnote: #54 Questions From Readers, The Watchtower 1 April, 1986 pp. 30-31. There you will find the following: Gal 1:8,9 is highlighted that says, if someone, DECLARES...other words. Then again “TEACHING dissident or divergent views” Then again reference is made to 2 Tim 2:17,18, “their WORD will SPREAD” and again “SAYING” the resurrection has already happened. In addition, it dealt with, “what they were TEACHING” Finally, reference is made to 2 John 7,10, 11 where one Brings their Teaching to others. They conclude by basically saying, ‘if a member unrepentantly promotes(divergent, dissident) teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregations see Titus 3:10, 11. Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point then qualified ministers will help.’ I move we adopt a similar rendering ourselves. The “Proclaimers Book” is even more clear on Page 629. This is in specific reference to “prominent“ members around 1980. Thus Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that those who ADVOCATE other views while still being a member -then have the POTENTIAL of being disfellowshipped. A person that believes differently is encouraged ‘to be patient and wait on Jehovah for changes’-See Watchtower 2000 September 1st page 11 “Show a waiting Attitude” Johanneum 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The belief has to be expressed but I think it's an overstatement to say one would have to be promoting the belief. I've known individuals who simply expressed their disagreement on certain subjects (one was about the resurrection of the "anointed" in 1918, and the other was about Christ being mediator) and they were disfellowshipped. They said they would not discuss this with others but it was decided to disfellowship them anyway. So, I think we should leave what we have as is. Dtbrown 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hear say or Facts. As Editors we go for established facts. I nor you know all the details surrounding any particular judicial case. However, there is clear direction from Witness publications that indicate it is “advocating” not just believing. Again the Watchtower I referenced encourages members that have difficulties accepting certain believes to be patient. We have clear direction here. Lets do the right thing. So what will it be- hear say or authoritative material directly from the Watchtower Society? Johanneum 07:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Franz and Penton document similar cases. I believe that for this statement to be sustained, these citations should be added. I would ask for a "hang on" for 24 hours for these citations to be added. joshbuddy^talk 07:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. However, even if/when some documented cases are given, the real issue is what is their stated policy. ( JV 629) What is in writing for the judicial committees to act on. Any exceptions to what is taught and published are just that out of the ordinary. We open up a whole can of worms going in that direction. Johanneum 07:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about the 1980 letter referenced above? joshbuddy^talk 07:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, I did not propose those situations I was aware of as "evidence." But, they did happen. The directives to elders include more things than are normally available to everyone. The 1980 letter that is referenced in the article and cited by Penton and Franz is among those. Dtbrown 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and also do not deny they did happen.Johanneum 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• At a minimal it seems we should add a qualifier (adverb) so that it reads “ Baptized members who adamantly disagree on any doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped for apostasy” Johanneum 12:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues needs to go away, help required

The article Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues needs to go away. There may be information that is useful here. If anyone has a moment, if they could just pick up the good bits (which are few and far between) or rewritten the poorly written bits into better bits for JW articles and merge them, then we can get this POV page deleted sooner instead of later.

I think most of the points would fit into:

• 607 - should go to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Blood - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood
• UN stuff - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments
• Rand Cam Engine Corp - should probably go to Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses as balancing points
• Jimmy Swaggart and Sales Tax - should probably go to Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses as balancing points
• Sex abuse stuff - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

I'll do what I can to sort it out, hopefully I'll have some more time to sort it out soon, but if anyone else feels like moving stuff, grab a shovel, enjoy. joshbuddy 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be useful to preserve that article as a sort of central reference of things about JW that have seen some controversy. I suggest merging into the articles you note, but refraining from deleting what's currently there.

The article could also benefit from a healthy dose of WP:NPOV. Pointing out the existence of controversies, and citing references where they have been described elsewhere in reputable sources, is very different from grinding an ax. ikkyu2 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Though keeping a laundry list of controversial JW issues would be useful, it would really just amount to a bunch of links to other articles that deal with the controversy in such a way as to give it context and equal disucssion to both sides. However, this cannot be done until the article gets its contents merged appropriately into its many new homes. joshbuddy 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, although I can't see how a list about controversial things could be a laundry list. Laundry is non-controversial.

However, let's look at it from the other point of view - that of the person whose primary interest in Jehovah's Witnesses is the controversy surrounding them. Let us say that that person's perspective is that of an opponent of Jehovah's Witnesses. That person might say, "Look, parting out the controversy surrounding Jehovah's Witnesses into 6 separate articles makes it impossible for the casual reader to get a fair overview of just how much controversy this church has generated. Therefore, dividing the articles up that way is an editorial decision that doesn't respect my point of view."

I kind of feel that way myself, actually. But I believe it's important to preserve NPOV, and the current article isn't particularly neutral. I believe it could be more neutral, though, and provide an overview of controversies that could be discussed, neutrally, in more detail elsewhere. Glad to learn your opinion on the matter, especially if you can think of a 3rd alternative that might be acceptable to all sides. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the colloquial expression "laundry list" carried the implication of being merely conventional. What I envision is a very brief summary of different controversial issues that would open up to the more detailed sections in the side articles. Currently the side articles are incomplete, and need filling out. Its happening, but it takes time. joshbuddy 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, these sorts of things are best done carefully, which means they can be tortuously slow to do. Good luck with your efforts! -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Has this article ever became "Featured article"? Or at least marked as a "good article"?

I think that it deserves it - it is a great example of citing sources, NPOV and good formatting ad illustration.--Amir E. Aharoni 12:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My ambition is to get this under peer review and a feature article. There are a number of things that still need to be done, but believe me, I'm keeping it in mind. joshbuddy 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Doctrines & Practices...

I've finished my merger of these two sections. According to Konrad, this is according the wikiproject plan for jws. Please verify what I've done. I hope its to everyones satisfactions. I think many of the redundancies present before have been cleared up. I look forward to your critiques and help with what I've written. joshbuddy 03:59, 19 February 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)

Apocalypse Delayed is critical?

I don't really agree with this edit. This book has a very neutral tone. Perhaps we need to eliminate these arbitrary categories altogether? joshbuddy^talk 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the alphabetical order idea! Dtbrown 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You certainly can not put Penton's first book on par with his second book, namely neutral. There is a vast difference!Johanneum 08:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, even Professor Penton mentioned in the forward of “Apocalypse Delayed” why his second book was so different than his first. But whatever the case, Please do not change it all because of my opinion. There are definite advantages of having different headings of those that are in support/ favor and those that are critical/against JW’s beliefs. Keeping the headings will harmonize with the external links on the same page.Johanneum 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

His first book, Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada was vastly different from his second book. In Apocalypse Delayed, he took a critical view of the witnesses. Critical is a funny word, because in this sense, it doesn't mean a disapproving nature, but rather, an analytical approach. The ambiguity of the header made this section confusing already.

The web links are confusing too mind you. Take a look at [1]. Is this supportive? neutral? critical? Why is it categorized the way it is? I'm thinking maybe its better just to alphabetize both lists and be done with it. Let the reader decide what sort of resource it is, and its merits themselves. From the witness perspective of not wanting to visit apostate sites, I can't see that being a serious concern. After all, most witnesses would not come to wikipedia to learn about their own religion. joshbuddy^talk 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying (and I like the way the books look now) but I'd say let's keep the separate lists for resources the time being. What say the JW editors? Dtbrown 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. Nice job. Johanneum 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New section proposal

Taking some cues from other religion articles, I have an idea I'd like to share. I think it would be great to seperate out the critical views of witness beliefs and make that into a new section. So now where we have Beliefs and Practices, which mixes official beliefs and critical views, we would have two seperate sections. Official Beliefs and Practices (or just Beliefs and Practices) and Critical View of Beliefs and Practices. Within the critical section very brief versions of arguments and counter-arguments could be included.

How does this idea strike everyone? joshbuddy^talk 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Johanneum 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted this for some time now... Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the proposal. In the Beliefs and Practices section on the main page there is very little critical information, except perhaps in the section on disfellowshipping. Otherwise, what is presented in that section is what Witnesses believe in a rather straightforward manner. Or, am I missing something? Dtbrown 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear. As it stands now, there is little to no critical information. That information would be presented here (very briefly) and would expand into a larger article. I think there is a reasonable amount of critical information about disfellowshipping, eschatology, basis of authority, blood, and perhaps others that could be presented. Basically, I would just take a look at other sources, and try and sum up their arguments very briefly. I would also include any counter-arguments from the Society itself. I know how critical real-estate is on the front article, so perhaps I would need to trim back the beliefs and practices a bit more too, make it a little more concise. It's just an idea in my head, and I wondered how it would strike everyone. joshbuddy^talk 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Here is an outline of what I'm talking about. User:Joshbuddy/Alt Belief Copy. Its not complete, just to answer a few questions about what exactly I'm refering too. Let me know what you think, and feel free to edit this page as you see fit. joshbuddy^talk 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

There appears a clear grossly biased pro-JW agenda going on here in the same way the JW Fundamentalist sock puppet Retcon|Missionary was doing. I imagine he is quite possibly involved posting under a new log on name[s]. The JW aim unmistakably emerging to be is: (1) Mess up all non-pro Watchtower material mixing it with opposite material, (2) Then remove all such material to new pages, (3) Then remove the new pages at a later date, and bingo! An entirely grossly pro-JW set of propaganda articles are left. If anything remotely balanced is still in existence, it is so hard to find the public coming here will give up. It does not take a brain surgeon to see this corrupt biased and manipulative goal unfolding here, and it's certainly not hidden with all the less than covert smaller steps towards that Pro-Watchtower propaganda end. Central 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Can you please comment on the issue at hand? Is the sectioning proposal good or bad? Incidently, the discussion to merge lists can be found above. It has to do with what "critical" means. Does it mean analytical or merely disparaging? joshbuddy^talk 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Giving balance is not "disparaging". Would you be in favour of changing the words "positive resources" to religious propaganda/brainwashing? I doubt it. I believe this arguing over the word 'critical' is a subterfuge and red herring. There are far more articles out there on Jehovah's Witnesses that are giving critiques than are positive. To hide information and debate, or worse, deny it even exists is not only unethical, it's blatantly fraudulent and manipulatively deceitful, and that is not supposed to be the purpose of any kind of reputable encyclopaedia. Mixing them all up into one long list does nothing but destroy the availability of the information in the first place. The purpose of any category is for ease of access to information, not to jumble it all up, so no one knows where to find direction, clarification or subject matter. How reasonable would it be to merge all the sub headings on the main page, i.e., "blood", "governments", "eschatology" and "beliefs" etc., into one massive mixed up long paragraph? It would make no sense at all! So why do that to the additional resources section? I find it interesting how neutral or pro-JWs material seems to be mushrooming into an infinite amount of new specialised pages, but the very opposite is happing with anything that is remotely non-flattering, like the controversial page, books, and web-resources trying to be broken up and then presumably censored out of existence. This blatant bias must be attended to and stopped immediately, because it's clear that non-flattering material is undoubtedly trying to be dissolved into oblivion or obscurity, and definitely moved off the main page where the public might dare to read it. While all else seems to be mushrooming out of control with its own new promo page, mimicking more and more each day the Watchtower's own website. Central 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Central, those are quite some charges to make. Do you have any evidence? Dtbrown 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want evidence go thorough the past history for the last 18 months on the main page and Talk pages. There was even a resources section page which kept changing name linked to the main page entitled last year "Critical information on Jehovah's Witnesses", previously to that any critiques or even remotely non-flattering information was immediately removed from the main page by zealous JWs who seem to think they own this site, or believe it's a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Society. This separate critical resources links page rapidly got deleted also (by a fanatical JW campaign), and here we are back at the same situation. JWs trying to squeeze out any balance, remove it to a distant location, and then put the bullet in the head out of public sight by removing it altogether, and hoping no one will notice while they surreptitiously try and turn the whole of Wikipedia into a new clone of the Watchtower's site Central 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1976-Present - changed year. actual re-organization took effect on jan 1 1976

It was on December 4, 1974 that the Governing Body was reorganized. The Six committes were formed and then on Janurary 1, 1976 they went into operation. "power of the presidency passed on to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." ??? more on that later. Johanneum 06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to type December 4, 1975, instead of 1974. Yes, the six committees went into operation on January 1, 1976. Before then, the president of the WT Society held the real power...though a transition can be seen from 1971 to 1975. This is covered in detail in Ray Franz's "Crisis of Conscience." Dtbrown 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Typo Just seems that September 6, 1971 is significant since that is when the Chairmanship of the Governing Body began to rotate. Feel free to drop this sub-heading to clear up this page if you wish. Johanneum 06:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Things began to change then. However, as Franz points out in "Crisis of Conscience" top decisions were still made by Knorr (unless he relegated authority to the Governing Body to handle something). For example, the Governing Body did not take over editing the publications until after the re-organization in 1976. Dtbrown 06:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding JW-ism

Just a note, that colloquial expressions unique to JW's should be avoided. joshbuddy^talk 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just knew the expression "time report" is/was inaccurate. "Field service report" is the proper terminolgy, but could create promblems. Johanneum 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Practices, Humanatarian Efforts part of Doctrines/Practices

Hey summersong. I notice you changed the heading level on various sections. The intent was to make these items part of doctrines and practices, to finally unite those two sections per jwproject. joshbuddy^talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)