Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Writer Beware

Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology or The Local Church of Witness Lee, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and energetically reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their headquarters, the Watchtower Society. Try it.

Darkness fears most the bright light of day.

From an active Jehovah's Witness

I'm not sure anyone's going to see this, as I'm really new to Wikipedia and if it works the way it *appears* to work, then I'm more confused than ever, but I figured I would give it a shot anyway. I discovered the entry for Jehovah's Witnesses a few days ago, and I revisited it this morning. Increasingly, I am amazed at just how comprehensive, fair and correct it is. Being, as I am, a veteran of alt.religion.jehovahs-witn for a number of years, I am unable to fathom a free online community producing something as appropriate as this article. I reviewed the history of the page, and I see the evolution and the infighting, but I must admit, I'm still stunned at the veracity of the current result. I can't imagine how to improve it, and believe me, I'm a guy with plenty of opinions. Because of this, I would like to applaud those of you who have contributed to it. Pat yourselves on the back, folks - this is a great piece of work. Agentseven

Anonymity-I am, admitedly, nervous about this entire forum. I too am an active Jehovah's Witness. My nervosity stems from the premise of Wikipedia itself. Can a lake of opinions let us drink from the ocean of facts? Or are we to drown inside knowing not which way is up? I do, however, agree with Agentseven (which, until just now, I thought was a German name). This is a very admirable project you have set before yourselves. I read the article and was amazed by its accuracy. Some of the information is inaccessible to nonbelievers. It's not that we wouldn't give it; it's merely that nobody ever asks. I.e.: the MP3 comment in the article. Only recently have I myself been aware that MP3's were available through our headquarters. We received a letter to our congregation describing the new media forms available for our congregation to order. So, naturally, the fact that you contain this information is impressive and leads me to the conclusion that other Jehovah's Witnesses are contributing to the article. But then I clicked on the discussion tab and found what I was expecting to find. So many views, and each having the personal value of a child to his father. I do not want to step on toes or rend myself from objectivity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some of you are sincerely curious about Jehovah's Witnesses and it is therefore my duty see to it that you receive whatever information you demand to know about this Christian faith (1 Peter 2:15). And, consequently, I am speaking in the second person perspective without having any particular individual in mind. Your online encyclopedia is the least slanderous to Jehovah's Witnesses I have observed save Watchtower.org itself! And that is saying a great deal in your favor. Take this as a mission statement, but I plan to humbly insert whatever contributions I can to this discussion page. I researched each of your bios and didn't find many if any Jehovah's Witnesses (except Agentseven who I can't link to, and those of you without a bio description). I thought it may be prudent to allow a Jehovah's Witness to represent Jehovah's Witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.

Don't even bother noting that Jehovah's Witnesses are "controversial"

Such disclaimers will be censored.

The problem with the redundant links as I see it, is that the words that are highlighted are generic words. "controversy", "doctrine", "practices". Given the over-active linking that goes on in other parts of the Wiki, a regular user could be forgiven for thinking that those links were to generic word discussions, and not specific to Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore the links are not only redundant, but misleading. Since those articles are linked below in a way that is NOT ambiguous or misleading, we are better off without them. --Clutch

If this encyclopedia were paper, your reasoning would make sense. But it is not paper, and your thinking limits the value of this medium. Hyperlinking is not merely a footnote, but an aid to stream-of-consciousness. Links indicate an extended scope of intention, which the author recommends that the reader may follow in order to understand what cannot be expanded in the immediate context without making the sentence too difficult to comprehend. As a flat document, the article could be reasonably interpreted in a nonsensical way, because of how much cannot be said in one sentence. With a link in the appropriate context, however, the terms as they are being used in the context can be helpfully elucidated, and the reader comes to a better understanding of the fact that the entry is not a comprehensive explanation of the reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses have so many enemies, and indeed cannot be. For this reason, Clutch, you will very likely find that you have a lonely opinion. These links are not redundant, misleading, or ambiguous. They are a helpful use of A large part of peoples difficulty with Lir was that he was linking in unrelated words all over the place. And he wasn't the only one. The Wikipedia is full of articles where the links just point to generic terms, NOT to specific discussions of issues relevant to the article. Given that bad experience, people aren't going to look at the links, they will just see the generic words linked and view it as more kiddie unprofessionalism on our (the editors) part. The links are already at the bottom of the article, clearly marked as to what they are. If someone wants to read about JW practices, doctrines, or controversies, the links are clearly marked and available. Stream of consciousness at this time is best assisted by the links at the end of the article. --Clutch

Mr. Editor, I wish to withdraw my subscription to your editorial column. Where may I send my cancellation notice? I had not realized when I signed up for your tracts that they would present only one person's obscure perspective and idiomatic use of language. If my subscription for the "neutral" version produced by the cooperative process described in your literature has been misplaced, if such a publication exists, and if I may be assured of the product advertised, please disregard this request. Mkmcconn

The links in question are in an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses, and they link to other, related articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's as simple as that, and thus it is appropriate. And the point of the links to the opposing Web sites is to provide links to "opposing viewpoints," not "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. In fact, the link to the Watchtower Observer was deletet, because that site was considered to be too biased by the users here. -- Modemac

Why don't you also then link to Luther's condemnation of the Catholic church in the Catholicism article? Or to the many Protestant websites that describe how Catholics are devil-worshipping "Papists"? Why not? Because it's not properly related to the article. Nor are those "Opposing Viewpoint" articles you insist on linking. --Clutch

Because, as has been said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed a controversial organization. They are viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and the links to those sites are there as examples of such. The links in question offer viewpoints about the Jehovah's Witnesses that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Hence, they are opposing viewpoints. -- Modemac

Because, as has been said before, the Catholic Church is indeed a controversial organization. It is viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and links to those sites are there as examples of such. The links in question offer viewpoints about the Catholic Church that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Catholic Church. Hence, they are opposing viewpoints.

You see how silly that sounds as a justification for linking Protestant websites to the Catholicism article? Why can't you see the similarity to what you are doing to the JW article? --Clutch

I already answered this, way up at the beginning of this page. I'll repeat this answer for convenience: "As far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary. This is also why I call it 'opposing viewpoints'"...and not "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. If you want to go add opposing viewpoint links to the Catholicism article, then go ahead and do so -- this is Wikipedia, you can make any changes that you think are necessary. I'm not interested in the Catholicism article, I'm not interested in the Holocaust article; this discussion is about *this* article, and why opposing viewpoints are a legitimate entry here. -- Modemac

Links to criticisms of catholicism definitely have a place in the respective article. I will add relevant ones as soon as I find the time. --Eloquence

Anonymity-I will not get into the mistakes the Catholics have been condemned by society for, but the links themselves have special significance to what I am about to say. There was a discourse given to us a while back about the internet. While it is a wealth of information and resources, it is also a realm of near-anarchy; which in turn leads to frequent incredibility and incredulity. Our advice was to avoid giving much attention to religious web sites. Even those that claim to be hosted by fellow Jehovah's Witnesses (Romans 16:17). There is no gaurantee that anyone is who they claim to be on the internet. This opens the possibility of stumbling upon an "apostate"-those who actively and maliciously oppose our work. Quickly before I move on, I wanted to address the use of "point of view." Being a Jehovah's Witness does not mean having a viewpoint, it means having viewpoints. I would think this is the same in all religions, but a viewpoint about creed is a philosophy, while a cornucopia of viewpoints about creed is a religion. There is no one word, nor scripture, nor philosophy that equates an entire religion. There may very well be an organization that agrees with a viewpoint the Jehovah's Witnesses do, but there is none that agrees with every single one. If there was, there would be no need to call the two organizations different.

It's silly to keep reverting each other's changes. Should I just protect the article?

For protection: (vote here)

If this ends this ridiculous affair, then I'm for it. It's petty and unwanted, and I'm still keeping up my end of it because I believe Clutch is being unfair. -- Modemac

Against protection: (or vote here)

Not yet. Let's try to talk about this. Q 17:15 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

--Uncle Ed

This article is only getting half a dozen edits a day. So whatever the problem is, I don't think freezing it is the solution. Matthew Woodcraft

Anonymity-Certain statistics will change frequently. For example, there were an average of 709 baptized each day last year (2003). The peak publishers number is a lot more compelling. The membership section would be inaccurate relatively quickly. The different languages the various publications are translated into is ever-expanding. Basically, we are a growing people, maturing constantly, and statistical information especially is hard to keep up with. As regards the history, that wont change. I'm not going to suggest locking it, but I would suggest nonbelievers to not argue over what we believe; that IS silly! You can't make over six million people believe something different because you argue over it on a forum. If you can't decide what we believe, just ask. I'm glad you have the Watchtower.org site listed, it's a great place to find those answers.

Clutch, can you please offer more insight on your change to:

Throughout their history, their doctrines, beliefs, and practices resulted in widespread persecution.

Why the removal of contraversy? And why was your comment for that edit "sp. contraversy", which to me implies you corrected the spelling of contraversy?

Contraversy means people disagree and debate. Were the JW policies (past/present) on blood/vaccination/organs/military service/pledge of allegience/voting, and many others not a source of contraversy? Why have there been landmark court cases over issues if they were not contraversial? Why are there edit wars here if there is not contraversy? Why are there anti-JW sites if there is not contraversy? Was there not contraversy in Germany when JWs were targetted in the Holocaust? What does the word contraversy mean to you? Thanks. Q

The word controversy in this case was redundant; if someone doesn't get the idea that the Witnesses are controversial after reading about the First Amendment battles, or the persecution by mobs, they probably aren't members of the human race. Hammering the point unecessarily only serves to alienate and dehumanize the Witnesses, by indicating that the editors agree with the persecutors that they are just controversial nutballs, who deserve whatever they have coming. It does not serve to inform. --Clutch

I strongly object to the removal of the first amendment information from this article. Rejection of the power of the state is a fundamental part of JW doctrine and history and it belongs here, not segregated off in some other article where no one will bother to go to learn of the great benefit that American democracy has gained from the bravery and steadfastness of the JW in defending their religion. I am surprised that The Cunctator did not propose or even mention this change on the talk page and in fact only gave notice in the neutral summary comment of "refactoring". Ortolan88 18:13 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

You should tone doen the rhetoric. How is "In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette." quietly tucking away the issue?

Putting information on different interlinked parts of Wikipedia is not segregation, except in a very literal sense.

Be bold in updating pages, and expect that everyone is working toward the same goal.

--The Cunctator

If I had been bold in updating, I would have updated the whole topic right back into this article where it belongs. Instead, I am (pretty much politely) discussing the move in the talk pages of this and the related article, which I very much would have preferred you do before making this arbitrary move (particularly considering all the funny business (not by you) that the JW article family has undergone). I am still waiting for some kind of reason for doing it. See the other talk page for my observations. Ortolan88

"Several Supreme Court cases" is not the same as "many Supreme Court cases". The latter is the case. There were 23 Supreme Court cases brought by witnesses in 8 years. That is many not several. I am not stupid enough to try to straighten this out while two combatants (neither of whom seem trustworthy) are duking it out, both with axes to grind and warehouses of edits to make against one another and both with unexpressed agendas, but I will be back to these articles after all the dust has died down. So long for now, Ortolan88

It wasn't arbitrary. The basic reason is that it's much easier for people to come to agreement through the editing process on a topic when it's broken up into discrete chunks, *especially for article families that undergo funny business*. This allows entries to be as specific and concise as possible.

For another example of this thinking, the explicit mention of other Christian heretics (and by heretic, I mean someone who rejects the Catholic Church) such as Luther and Peter Waldo doesn't belong on the Jehovah's Witnesses page because the statement that JW are like other heretics that believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong is doubly superfluous. It's simply completing a syllogism from definitions:

heretics believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong
JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe are heretics
JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe believe mainstream Christianity got it wrong

That information belongs in pages about heresy and Christian reformation movements or the such.

That said, if I can't convince you, especially if you give yourself a little time to consider the changes, then you chould certainly feel free to change things to whatever situation makes sense to you. --The Cunctator

Characterising JW's as heretics is neither neutral, nor appropriate. Mentioning the other religious reformers like Luther and Waldo is appropriate, as the JW's view themselves as being in a line of descent, spiritually, from those men. Please undo your revert.

How is it neither neutral nor appropriate? It wasn't a revert; it was an edit. And the article doesn't even call the religion heretical. Specific discussion of how the JW appeal to Luther, Waldo, etc. should take place at doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do you keep taking out the fact that, of all the groups persecuted in the Holocaust, only the JW's were beheaded, a punishment usually reserved for traitors and people engaged in political subversion? Why do you take out the fact that mob violence against Witnesses continues today in places like Georgia? Why do you keep putting back in a statement that is not factual (JW's became a centralized organization under Rutherford)?

For the first, there's a entire entry for discussion about the treatment of the Witnesses in the Holocaust. The second needs to be put into context and clarified--what does "mob violence" mean, what other groups are threatened, how often, etc. References would help. For the third, I put it in because I didn't see any information to counter that. There needs to be more hard information on the history of JW presented.

Why do you keep putting a link to Arianism in the article? JW's are not Arians, and reject that categorization.

So what form of early Christianity does JW harken back to? They certainly seem to be in line with the Arianist rejection of trinitarianism.

What makes you think that your less informative lead paragraph is superior to the one it replaced? You replaced this:

Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s as a Bible study group. The members are known for their racially diverse, close-knit brotherhood, door-to-door evangelizing and non-participation in government, including politics and military service.

With this:

Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination founded as a Bible study group in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell as the Bible Students.

Instead of deleting information, could you not have just inserted "are a Christian denomination" in the lead paragraph and left the rest of the information in?

That's simply not true. Look again.

Why did you replace the following paragraph:

In the United States, there have been many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have broadened and increased First Amendment protections for all citizens. Some of the most significant of these cases involved their right to not pledge allegiance to the state, to not salute the flag, to refuse service in the military, and to preach in public. (See West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette).

With this:

In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have shaped First Amendment law, to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette.

What is your basis for saying there were NOT many Supreme Court cases involving JW's? Have you researched this? Why replace the more specific "broadened and increased First Amendment protections" with the less specific "shaped"? Did some of these Supreme Court cases narrow citizens rights and protections? Why did you replace the enumeration of what the cases were about with the single phrase "temporal disengagement"? Half the cases had nothing to do with temporal disengagement, and everything to do with the right to disseminate their literature and preach in public.

"several", "many"; I don't care. There needs to be more evidence presented to show exactly how the cases have shaped First Amendment law before it's proper to assert "broadened and increased First Amendment protections", which is a strong claim. I replaced the enumeration with the phrase "temporal disengagement" because none of the cases discussed had to do with public preaching. That is to say, more information needs to be added to Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.

You seem to want to move from concrete statements of fact to general, more vague statements. I ask you; how does this benefit the article? How does such a policy benefit the Wikipedia?

Are you a JW? Were you a JW? How do you know the things you have been writing here Cunctator? What makes you THINK you know those things?

--Clutch

No need to raise your voice. All I'm doing is editing. That is to say, I read what is presented, then edit it to say what are the clearly explained points in (what I intend to be) a clear manner. I am not deliberately editing out useful information. If my edits state or imply something incorrect, then you should understand that means that the correct information was not presented well enough for me to understand (or find it plausible or important). --The Cunctator

I'm not getting involved in the theological debate, but one of your statements is incorrect. JWs were not the only victims of the Holocaust to be beheaded. It was a common form of execution in several camps (notably Klooga), and if we are to expand the scope to include victims of Nazi oppression, it was used against the members of the White Rose. Danny

Thank you for the clarification. Beheading was the punishment reserved for traitors and people involved in political subversion against the State. JW's were neither traitors, nor engaged in political work of any sort, subversive or not, but they were beheaded anyway. --Clutch

No problems, but it is still not accurately portrayed. Other people were, in fact beheaded (though hanging, shooting, and gassing were far more common). The fact that beheading was commonly (but not exclusively) used for political subversives actually indicates the sources of Nazism's opposition to JWs. Pacifism, failure to salute flags, etc. were deemed politically subversive acts, and punishment was meted out accordingly. This can be constrasted with the Nazis' racial policies against Jews and Gypsies (and to some degree, Slavs), which resulted in death for an accident of birth. In other words, JWs, like Communists, could denounce their beliefs and be accepted as Aryans. Others could not. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of JW victims by age. Were children killed or taken for reeducation, etc. (In no way is this meant to detract from the suffering of JWs under Nazism, but to understand the roots of that oppression.) Danny

The issue of beheading could be better explored and clarified, but I'd prefer not to distract Cunctator right now from replying to my complaints against his recent reverts of my edits. --Clutch

In Western Europe, beheading has been the form of execution for treason, from ancient times. Mkmcconn 06:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem here, Clutch, is that you seem to be determined to be the final authority on the Jehovah's Witnesses, and all edits to this article have to meet your approval. If not, you erase it and revert it back to your own edit. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The idea here is that users are supposed to improve upon each other's edits...and if the resulting edit is not *exactly* what you intended, then you work with that person to produce a suitable compromise. Working with the other users here does not mean deleting their edits entirely and repeatedly reverting them back to your own. If you ever realize that, then maybe you'll find yourself at the center of fewer edit wars, flame wars, and accusations of censorship. -- Modemac

You just indulged in an ad hominem. If instead you would stick to constructive criticism for the article itself, I'm sure the article would benefit from your input. --Clutch

As opposed to accusing the other users here of attacking your religion? -- Modemac

That comment makes no sense. --Clutch

Okay, then how about this quote from the top of this article: The people that want the "Opposing Views" in only seem to want the ones that trash the JW religion. -- Modemac

Now you are taking things out of context. I don't see that we have anything to say to each other right now. --Clutch

It's funny, Cunctator, that your "edits", trying to "clarify what is presented" consisted of reverting my edits to previous version of things, and changing the characterisation of various facts. Perhaps instead of assuming that what someone wrote was mistaken, and that what they wrote "probably isn't true" and reverting their edits, you could ask for clarification on the Talk page? --Clutch

You know, I was terribly excited at the prospects and future of Wikipedia when I first came across it. Looking at this page has certainly dulled my enthusiasm. I'm seeing a Usenet II developing here. --Michael 08:20 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put the text about Arius back in because the statement is a true statement, and highly relevant. If you read the earlier comments on this talk page, you'll find several Jehovah's Witness sources cited which list Arius as someone who maintained the truth in the past. While JW's may not affirm all of Arius' beliefs, they do affirm the main belief which the First Ecumenical Council condemned, namely that Jesus Christ is a created being. From reading the past discussion on this page, it seems clear that the text about Arius was only removed earlier because Clutch was more persistent than the other editors. Wesley 13:17, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems evident from JW materials that (at least until some point) in writings that seem to be in some sense authoritative, Arius has been considered as much a hero for the Truth as Luther, Wyclif, Waldo, and Paul. So, we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans - I can understand that reasoning. But it's their connection to Arius, not to Luther, that is controversial. And in being controversial it describes their distinctive. How is that misleading? Mkmcconn \

Isn't the denial of that connection, more misleading? If the expressed intentional purpose of identification with Arius has been to distance JWs from Christendom (which has among other crimes repudiated their hero, Arius), does covering up that connection have the purpose of disguising the JW's repudiation of Christendom? How does that serve the purposes either of the JWs or of reporting the facts? Mkmcconn 05:50, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem with identifying JWs as "Arians" is that this is a label applied to them by people who disagree with them: "Oh, they're just like the Arians". Actually there's no evidence that they were influenced by Arian writing, nor do they consider themselves followers of Arius. If their beliefs agree with those of Arius only on the relationship between God and Jesus, that hardly makes them "Arians". To say "their hero, Arius" is misleading and would be vehemently denied by any JW.

As I said, "we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans". But their literature has repeatedly identified Arius as being on the good-guy side. That doesn't make them Arians; but it does make them sympathetic with Arius in exactly that respect in which trinitarian Christians repudiate Arius. (please sign your posts) Mkmcconn — 22:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About the heresy, Mathew 7:13 says "Go in through the narrow gate; becuase broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramp is the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."

Have the people of the god from the bible ever been the strongest, most widely respected people? Had you been a heretic in a good area of time in ancient Isreal, you would have been following him. Daniel, Habakuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, they were all "heretics." Jesus himself was a "heretic" to the goings about of Isreal of the time. User:Fictisious Oddwobble

Anonymity-Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it. I prefer to think that everybody else was a heretic, and these were the righteous individuals. Heretics don't need to be a minority. Who's more qualified to label someone as a heretic? God or the masses? Jehovah said that the nation of Israel was sinful (Isaiah 1:4). The thing about Arius was that he disagreed with the majority, which doesn't always mean you're wrong. For this they called him a heretic. But that doesn't mean he was a heretic. If the Council of Nacaea was wrong about the origin of Christ, then that would mean they were also wrong about Arius being a heretic. Often in Biblical chronology, nations were as a whole heretical, and certain individuals were the righteous ones. Or...was that your point, Fictisious Oddwobble? That the word "Heretic" is rather pointless and subjective when used by men to other men?

True, being in the majority doesn't guarantee you're "right." At first Arianism was a minority view, but for much of the fourth century (including after Nicaea in 325) Arianism was actually in the majority. That's why the second ecumenical council had to condemn it again. There are other times later in the church's history when the "orthodox" position seemed to be in the minority, such as when an emperor was pushing iconoclasm. But this article doesn't need to decide whether JW's or Arians are heretics; the only question is whether it is neutral to note that JW's do agree with Arius on the point for which the first and second ecumenical councils condemned him. The reader is still free to conclude that either the councils were right or Arius was right, or that it's all a bunch of silliness that doesn't matter. AFAICT, this is how NPOV writing working in wikipedia. Wesley 16:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Controversial issues of Jehovah's witnesses

As a Jehovah's witness I can honestly say that our religion does evoke strong reactions from people - There is actually book entitled "The Evocative Religion of Jehovah's Witnesses" (by Matthew Alfs). The inclusion of a section on this topic in this work seems reasonable, whether it is better referred to as "evocative" or "controversial" I don't know. Perhaps "evocative" is a better word?

Unfortunately, many of those who work against J's ws use misinformation, but the good reputation of J's ws is well known by the majority of people and only the most vehement of opposers will refuse to admit so. Therefore it seems to me that whatever links or comments may be included here, the reputation of our religion as a whole will not be damaged.

This is a good work, all the hard work involved is greatly appreciated. (At least by me.)

george

This entry: "To those who would like to make sure whether there are any totalitarian tendencies in their religion or not some useful hints are given in Totalitarian religious group."

should either be removed or placed in every article representing a religion,
because facets of the definition listed under "Totalitarian religious group"
could be applied to every religion in existence. I intend to delete it unless
someone replies.

george m

russell's "successor"

The comment: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of Charles Taze Russell's successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford."

Implies a line of succesion. Russell never named a successor and Rutherford was elected. I believe the statement: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of the Watchtower Society's second president, Joseph Franklin Rutherford." is better. I am making the change today, please comment here if you have any objections or advice.

should the page be protected?

I am considering deleting the text of the page until this current problem can be resolved. Someone continues to chop up an already concise and accurate article for personal reasons I can find no academic reasons for the actions being taken by this anonymous invidual. Since I am not an admin, Some help please.

I think this page should be protected, because it is corrupt by anti-JW. K.M. 01:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone wrote this:

By faith, Jehovah's Witnesses believe their unique religion to be a restoration of original first-century Christianity as revealed to Mr. Russell. They are known for predicting the exact date of Jesus' physical return to earth. The last prediction was 1974, after which they gave up predicting since it caused a serious loss of membership and business.

I'm JW but I don't know Jesus' phisycal return. Jehovah's Witnesses didn't believe it. Certainly, some people thought Armagedon would come in 1914 or 1974, but Watch Tower Society denied it. Primarily, JW don't believe Jesus's phisycal return, they believe Jesus's presence. K.M. 07:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-"being taken by this anonymous invidual." It wasn't me in case you were wondering. Anyway, the 1914 thing: 1914 was, as many should know, the start of WW1. More than that, however, it was the time that the Kingdom of God was established and the "last days" began. It wasn't a physical returning of Christ, however. There are newspapers and magazine quotes before and after 1914 that say the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted a time of unrest and an end to peace at 1914. All that being said, 1975 was not the same (it was 1975 by the way). The current president, Brother Franz, told another who asked about 1975 that Armageddon may or may not happen, but that the point was to not slow down or let up, time was running out for this world. It was not an official prediction or anything like that. 1975 was, some figured out, was 6000 years beyond Adam's birth. Some thought that meant that the end of the seventh day was then. But the sixth creative day didn't end until Eve was created, and the Bible gives no mention of when that happened. It's a case of anxiety. When you wait your entire life for something to come and you don't know when it will, it's a challenge not to put faith into any date people throw out there. The 1975 issue did reassure one thing, though, that nobody knows the day or the hour. Armed with the evidenced fact that there's no way of knowing, we haven't had any more false alarms. It's not that we haven't bothered making any more predictions because we were worried of loosing people.

June 22, 2004 revert

Was there a particular reason for the June 22, 2004 revert of my edits of a few days earlier? --Gary D 20:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of a reason, I reverted their revert to restore your changes. Sorry about that, Gary -- seems an odd edit to revert. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Jwrosenzweig. Even as against an anonymous editor, I didn't want to do a quick reversion myself without having a third-party "referee" editor do it or myself allowing some time to pass first, since that smells of starting an edit war. I do understand that these can be touchy topics to edit. To the anonymous editor, I say that I am willing to discuss the reasons for my recent edits. --Gary D 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A great attitude, Gary -- you have the right perspective about this. Exactly what I would have done under the circumstance. I hope it all ends happily, as it seems to have. Perhaps the anon was simply testing out reversion to see if it worked? Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mebbee. Thanks again. --Gary D 22:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Our reverter speaks! He or she asks, "why would you delete [from the "see also" section] links to relevant links of doctrine and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?" I deleted these because they are already wikified up in the section, "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses," and I understand the general Wikipedia policy to be not to duplicate text-wikified terms in the "see also" section. However, these being fairly central matters and this being the main article on the topic, I can see why an exception might be made here.

I didn't do the other edits you reverted, except for adding the category "New religious movements", which was defined upon its creation [by me, that's how I know] as including movements back to the mid-nineteenth century. The Mormon guys removed themselves from my category, and I didn't put up too much of a fuss, at least for the time being (I imagine everyone would like their religion considered as established rather than new, and besides, the category is still rather amorphous). I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss here, either, if you gave me a reason to exclude JW. --Gary D 23:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I have moved the mis-capitalized page to Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, so that the amended, properly-capitalized link on this page now works. Please know, I am not trying to work against you. --Gary D 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 28, 2004 edit

I support the June 28th edit. Moving controversy out of the context-establishing top paragraph is in line with WP style on controversial topics. --Gary D 18:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ecumenical movement

Also persistent is something showing up about the "ecumenical movement"; as though "it" were something that had a negative opinion about those that do not participate in "it". Since the most vocal critics of the JWs are critical precisely in the sense that they wish to exclude JWs from anything ecumenical, I can't even tell if the parties are being ironic, who are complaining about criticism from the "ecumenical movement" to the effect that JWs are wrong because they don't want to be part of it. Anyway, it makes little sense to me, and so I've removed it several times; and without some explanation here, I can't see why I shouldn't remove it whenever it appears. Mkmcconn — 20:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two little points

Firstly; in the article section covering common opposition to this religion, I notice that the most common or initial reason that some people react adversely to Jehovah's Witnesses or similarally stereotyped religions is not mentioned. That is: up-front evangelizing methods. People are reluctant to be exposed to new or differing thoughts or concepts on their doorsteps. E.g. Charity drives, Religions, Sales-people. While mentioned indirectly in the section "...a permit in order to preach from door to door...", it perhaps should be mentioned more explicitally in the opposition section that most people's adverse reactions to Jehovah's Witnesses stem from this door-to-door evangelizing rather than JW doctrine considering that most people 'turn off/tune out' prior to learning any of the JW precepts because of their initial reaction - a reaction that they justify or reenforce by learning and stating JW concepts and practices that they don't like.

Secondly; for a Wiki article to have at the top of the talk page a statement saying 'writers beware' and that edits can't be applied because of an official gangland version is... worrying. Even if it is sardonic. The article doesn't flow quite right and is bit too short for the possible content matter (sub-articles aside) which, considering the Wiki skillbase availiable, is only likely because POVs are tearing at this article like a pack of dogs with a single bone. You should sit back and think 'If I didn't know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses and I wanted a Wiki to help me learn - what should that article explain and how?' When you think about it that way; the way the article doesn't flow right just leaps out at you.

But Religion isn't my primary Wiki forte; so I'll leave to you. - 25th July 2004. (A person)

doubtful cause of opposition

What critics are being described by

"Much criticism has also come from the Watchtower Society's reference to itself being the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" of Matthew 24:45-47."

They claim all sorts of provocative things for themselves. I doubt that this claim gets much more attention than anything else. Who thinks that it does? or, is this just more advertizing masquerading as something else? Mkmcconn — 04:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

Is it just me, or have recent edits(past couple of weeks) serverely modified this article, and not in a good way. I don't know, but it just feels lacking compared to when I read it a few weeks ago. Anyone else notice this? -- elykyllek 17:19, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it has been chopped up like it always does. A few months ago it was a thoroughly informative article but it got cut up and any time someone makes a positive or neutral addition about JW's to the article eventually someone with a beef throws in just enough deletions and changes to ruin it. george m

Could you be a little more vague please? < /sarcasm > Wesley 04:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-I too am curious what changes you are implying. It is the first time today that I stumbled upon Wikipedia, and I'm still here because I find it fascinating that the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses are uniquely accurate. While, given, there are some connotations of words that hide a subtle disapproval of what is being written. Nonetheless there is nothing obviously wrong in the article sections. It's a great step in encyclopedia creation to give everyone an equal authority while retaining the option of ambiguity. I've heard cable documentaries that say Jehovah's Witnesses primarily target poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents. We preach in countries that don't even have poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents! The lies about our faith exceed that of any other, to a point that I doubted any nonbeliever really knew what we believed at all. Sometimes succinctness is good; the more information you try to give about a group of people, the more chances you have of being a liar.

Pardon my muddy water. This article was extensive and got tore apart by someone a few months ago. People have done a good job of rewriting it. The comment above caused me to remember it and it obivously helped me into a stupid moment. Apologies. george m

This article is extremley biased in favor of JWs

It is written very obviously by an active JW, with only positive viewpoints about JWism represented. This would be like an article about the Democratic party spouting only wonderful things about them, and never raising popular controversial issues.

The article praises JW involvement in the holocaust, but fails to mention that the JWs themselves were praising hitler in their 1934 yearbook and saying that they also despised jews and jewry. It fails to discuss the controversialness of blood transfusions, or that many children have died because of that particular dogma.

JW Nazi Conciliation

For one thing this article is edited by many who are and are not JW's. Second, Former JW's keep trying to use a few words in a single publication produced during a time of extreme duress as the official position of JW's. Ridiculous. The US government and the historians who worked on the US holocaust museum as well as = every other credible historian = have not found this to be an important issue to address. Thirdly you are bringing up issues about subjects dealt with on other pages. george m

And is it true that MANY children HAVE DIED because of JW doctrines? In Japanese Wikipedia, that controversy is occured. But it has no evidence. Rantaro 11:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Archive creation - --DannyMuse 05:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)