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

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.

Rapid growth under Rutherford?

Afaik, the growth under Rutherford was very slow. (Especially when you factor in the 1925 fiasco and the massive leaving after that) Knorr was the one who really got things moving. Can this be corrected?

To be fair, based on the talk "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" which emphasized that the world had ended in 1914 and 1925 would be the year for the return of the "ancient worthies" the growth was incredibly rapid under Rutherford. The "negative growth" was far more rapid, as Memorial Attendance in 1926 fell back to fewer than attended in 1917. Many decided not to wait on Jehovah, apparently losing confidence in their God's ability to accurately communicate to His servants here on earth. Respectfully, Evident 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Evident, "Many decided not to wait on Jehovah, apparently losing confidence in their God's ability to accurately communicate to His servants here on earth." That is a strange sentence. I am sure that if those who left were asked why they left, they wouldn't say "I've decided to stop waiting on Jehovah", they would more likely say "I'm no longer convinced that these are his servants".

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.Tommstein 08:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Yes it probably was. It's been a long day.--Jeffro77 08:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't me, it was somebody else. But to respond to the question, I don't have hard statistics in front of me, but didn't something like over 75% of Bible Students leave within a few years of Russell's death and Rutherford's shenanigans and general BS? Even if growth was monumental later, this is enough to warrant at least a qualification on any reports of astounding growth during his rule.Tommstein 02:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem of finding non-JW, JW Scholars

Konrad, the problem as I see it is that no one completely removed from Jehovah's Witnesses has ever cared enough to become scholarly and anyone who has ever had dealings with them is considered biased if they say anything negative later.

In my opinion, it will be difficult to find a non-JW scholar who cares enough about the religion one way or another to become an authority on the subject, the general public likely won't care and Jehovah's Witnesses won't either. A scholar without an audience or support for his work is a rare thing indeed. The only ones who would care are ex-JWs, and their support will automatically poison Witnesses against them. Respectfully, Evident 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The source of something is irrelevant, and it is an ad hominem logical fallacy to even consider that (strictly speaking, not that it can't be wise to not pay attention to some fruitcakes out there). Either you can back it up with good proof or you can't. Assertions that ex-Jehovah's Witnesses' facts are somehow less good than the same facts revealed by somebody else should be just plain ignored. They're the closest thing to non-Jehovah's Witness Jehovah's Witness experts we're gonna find, and have seen everything that active Jehovah's Witnesses have. Claims by active Jehovah's Witnesses of bias in their facts have to be proven with hard proof, not ad hominem attacks and general pissing and moaning about bias.Tommstein 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

HistoricalPisces and the removal of "that"

Fellows, something's gotta stop here. I have noticed a trend here where HistoricalPisces basically runs through the article (and other Jehovah's Witness-related ones) and does a 'search and destroy' for all occurrences of the word "that", often rendering sentences grammatically incorrect in the process (in my opinion, e.g., if you change "they believe that Armageddon" to "they believe Armageddon," one might wonder what exactly Armageddon said that they believe). We need to come to some agreement on whether to continue removing perfectly-good instances of the word "that", because what is going on now is just foolishness. I think they should stay, because at the very least they aid readability.Tommstein 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I see that Jeffro77 just said basically the same thing in the article in the time that it took me to type that, and even put them back in.Tommstein 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that my work was noticed in the time it took me to add something to the talk page. It appears that HistoricalPisces may not be intentionally vandalising the article, but may be confused about the correct use of the word 'that' as a conjunction (where, as Tommstein has correctly pointed out, it removes doubt about the subject of the verb), rather than its use as a pronoun.--Jeffro77 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Corrected previous edit because I noticed that that had had omitted an 'as' as well. Well...)

I was too lazy to do anything about it myself. So thanks Jeffro77! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what all of the hype is about. What is the difference between, "that" and not having that? Seems to me like we are making Much Ado About Nothing! Эрон Кинней (TALK) 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When 'that' is removed between a verb and its noun clause, the readability suffers because it is not obvious whether the verb refers to only the immediately following noun or the noun clause, which adds confusion to what follows the noun. Though this might not bother people who are used to writing things like "I luv u 4eva, l8r d00d", in an encyclopedia, it is preferable to maintain correct grammar.

Excuse me, I'm the editor in question here. I agree with Kinneyboy90. Tommstein should alert me if I've incorrectly edited anything; I just follow the ''Elements of Style'''s rule about the word.--HistoricalPisces 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note this whole big section Tommstein created entitled "HistoricalPisces and the removal of 'that'" alerting about the issue. If someone said your removal of "that" is correct, I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be writing style manuals.Tommstein 21:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a scandal section or page

ran-cam, un-ngo, pedaphiles, blood, 1975, 1914, 607bce-587bce, docturnal flip flops, and lawsuits just a small list of things that need to be addressed.--Greyfox 04:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of that is already mentioned on the various pages. What is ran-cam? The defense contractor they have (had?) stock in?Tommstein 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep --Greyfox 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

JW's, Sub-Conscious Inerrancy, and Epistemology

Jehovah's Witnesses, like many other religions, have failed to adequately address the issue of the rationality of non-belief and the nature of the "true" religion. In the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," the witnesses claim that their religion is the only true religion. Pg 203.

Given the soteriological implications of belief in the one true religion, one would expect to find a logically exhaustive account of what makes any given religion a true religion. Nowhere in the Reasoning book does one find the necessary and sufficient conditions for the true religion. They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.

Rational minds require a logical rule that would distinguish all cases of true religion from all cases of non-true religion (even hypothetical cases). Without even having the logical criteria for the true religion, it is impossible to decide logically both what the true religion is, and if there is a true religion, which one it is. You cannot distinguish the true and non-true religions unless you have all of the logical criteria for the existence of the true religion. Maybe it's there, hidden away, but they certainly have not done any one else a favor by hidding it. Why isn't it prominantly displayed for all to see?

This leads to my second point: some people are both rational and do not accept witness doctrine. Because of personal experience, idiosyncrasy, careful deliberation, or anything else, someone can be justified in their denial of witness belief. This is hard for many witnesses to accept. Witnesses cannot accept someone disbelieving on rational grounds. Many witnesses are justified in their beliefs and many non-witnesses are equally justified in their beliefs.

Why don't witness adopt a more considerate, self-aware approach to those who disagree with certain teachings? If one assumes that the logical criteria for the true religion is not there, and that the criteria that is used is "soft" or "mushy," then one must accept the beliefs of non-witnesses as justified.

Some people explain away doxastic differences with the "evil will" arguement. That is, if you disagree with a teaching, you must have an evil will because no rational person can disagree with the "truth." It assumes that the other person actually shares your reasons for belief, but somehow consistently refuses to believe what that one is justified in believing purely on moral grounds. This approach inevitably takes the discussion away from the realm of reason and argumentation and into the realm of moral judgment. It completes the circle back to the witnesses being true in the first place, such that they are able to interpret the moral criteria.

Finally, the witnesses allege that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204. Yet, in the "Creator" book, the writers used at least four or five well known philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God. The statement from the Reasoning book is itself evasive because it does not preclude philosophical arguments, but almost every witness interprets it that way.

When you talk to most witnesses, just the thought of "philosophy" or "accepting other people's views" is almost immediately dismissed out of hand (which is amusing given the "mushy" rationality of the belief)...that is why most are victims of sub-conscious inerrancy.

Any answers, or comments? I would appreciate it.

While you raise some valid points, this isn't really the place for them. The talk page for Wikipedia articles is for discussion related to the article itself. Do you want to include some of the things you mentioned in the article? If so, be bold and put them in! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to make rationalist arguments, and then have them posted on the main site, because most people think that if you don't cite some authority, that you have no grounds. I did post a one "Jehovah's witnesses believe that their reilgion is the only true one".

Wikipedia has a no original research policy, which does cover some of the things that you mentioned, so they would be excluded from the articles. However, some of the things you said are verifiable, such as what the Reasoning book says about philosophical arguments.

Some of the things you said that could be included are (obviously needing copyediting):

• Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion.
• They do not cite the necessary and sufficient conditions to uniquely and identify or prove the true religion.
• They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.
• They claim that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204.
• In the "Creator" book, at least four or five philosophical arguments are used to argue for the existence of God.

All of these statements are verifiable, NPOV and not original research. You can put them in appropriate places if you like. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How does using philosophical arguments for the existence of God go counter to what they said about not using them "to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth?" Arguing for God's existence is clearly not evading the Bible. Unless the point is their double standard, the ignoring of philosophy when it's inconvenient and the usage of it when it's convenient. But the way I have seen this stuff expressed, it seems as if the main point is them doing what they said they don't (which is what I don't think they're guilty of in this case), as opposed to just having a double standard.Tommstein 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

First, there are many interpretations of that statement, one of which precludes the use of philosophical arguments. Many people interpret the statement to mean that they do not use philosophical arguments. The subheading defines the meaning of the statement. The subheading is "How do we arrive at our explanation of the bible?" Now, the meaning atomist might argue that the statement in question means that the witnesses only use philosophical arguments when they agree with the meaning of the bible, and do not use them when they disagree. I think this atomistic interpretation of the text is one possible understanding of it. But if you "factor in" many other presuppositions, including the subheading, and the common belief of the audience, you will usually find that the statement means that JW's do not use philosophical arguments.

Meaning holism is true. What you bring into the text determines what you get out of the text. Most interpreters do not see the linguistic atoms, they see the holistic meaning flash in their heads. But all things considered, i agree with you, you've spotted an alternative interpretation.

My opinion the average jw or religious persons wants someone to tell them what is the truth, and what the facts are. They either do not want to find out what the facts are, or can't find out for one reason or another. Anything there leader says is truth because their leader knows better in their opinion. Meanwhile the rest of the world looks to the facts to find truth, not a leader.

By the way this is not limited to religion look at the iraq war contraversy.--Greyfox 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me just say this, as a witness, as a person who is fully aware of the fallicious nature in which the "society" and the "organization" perpetrate(sp?) there beliefs, i have this one thing to say, every religion has it's faults, i get more confllcit over my religion than any thing else, but you don't see a devout catholic getting critisized for, his or her beliefs however illogical or unscriptually founded they are, but i have accepted this, i have my own reasons for believing what i believe, and it's not because i'm a lap dog that constant performs fellacio for my congregations elder body, just like a mormon would not be able to despute the fact that the first version of the "Book of mormon" gave a loose geographical location for the occurence of the majority of the events in the old testament as being jackson county, missouri, i can't refute some of the obnoxious gapping holes in my beliefs. but i can deal with it, the simple fact being, most anybody who chooses close association with any form of organized religion, is being mislead, religion is a system of control, that has been honed and mastered throughout the ages and nothing will be able the change that. the fact that some of you here tend to brand all witnesses as closed minded fools is rather offensive to me simply because i was expecting a more openminded view towards things, but looks like i was diappointed again. but anyways i have this to say, you say that were ignorant, that we have no comprehension of what is going on in our organization, thats false, alot of witnesses do, and they accept it. think about this, witnesses apparently are so very inflexible and closed minded however i lost some of my good non-witness friends because there pastor/priest/father encouraged them to cut off all contact with me, it wasn't like i wanted them to become witnesses, i liked them because of there personality, there individuality, you say witnesses are manipulated and controlled, i say thats simply because we are not in the mainstream of things, because everybody in the majority of religions today are manipulated and controlled. like i stated earlier all religion is a from of control, and a effective religion concerned with growth would be very stupid to allow it's members (who are obviously lacking intelligence themselves) to go about freely with out trying to safe guard there aquisitions( the members ) they would not keep there members very long now woold they? especially a repressive religion that holds ever so closely to traditional beliefs in this day and age(ie; Jehovah's Witnesses) all i'm saying is before you pull out that pirated version of the elders book, organized to do jehovah's will, and the reasoning book, go ask an elder how he'd feel if a witness get D'fed, or disassociated himself, then go ask a your near church pastor that same question, you might be surprised at the answer. btw tommstein, i'd love for you to tell my elders that i've been around some apostates, might finally get me that MS position i've been bucking for......... .--ALLreligion_is_a_sham_and_a_racket

What the hell was this? Paragraphs and proper capitalization, spelling, and grammar (or something approaching it) go a long way.... I know, we don't need perfect, professionally-edited stuff here, but Jesus. I'm not just saying this because I disagreed with what you said, because, well, I'm not actually sure what exactly your point was in there.Tommstein 07:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of what ALLreligion_is_a_sham_and_a_racket said doesn't make any sense at all. To admit to being aware of the "repressive religion's" "fallicious" nature with doctrinal "obnoxious gaping holes" and to stick with it suggests an arrangement of convenience rather than devotion. If most of his congregation read what he posted, I doubt they would be too openminded about the things said. He states that he didn't want his friends to become Witnesses, so either he expects that they are going to die at Armageddon, or doesn't really believe Armageddon will happen, so isn't really a genuine Witness by their own tenets. Either he is baiting readers for a response, is lacking the spine to leave the JW organization despite his true feelings, or has a cunning and devious plan to infiltrate the organization at its highest echalons (mwa ha ha ha haaaaa)--Jeffro77 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is a polemic against the rationality of religious exclusivism. If your an apologist of religious exclusivism, and more narrowly, JW exclusivism, then state the reasons that support an exclusivist worldview. Emotions rarely change the beliefs of others, but reasoning can and often does very well at altering belief. Allreligion, you must state your reasons, and exclude the rest of the chaff, if you want anyone to listen to you.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments and Tomm

Read the sentence man, it just doesn't make any damned sense at all: "While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members who freely express religious views that conflict with those they promote as being apostate and to be avoided/shunned... One minute it's talking about advocation of freedom of expression as religious organizations and all of a sudden it's talking about baptized Jehovah's Witnesses. I removed the untruthful parts of the original paragraph, when I did this, the paragraph no longer made any sense. So I deleted the first line "advocating freedoms.." and moved the rest of the paragraph. Why do you keep changing it back? Not only does it not make any sense, it's reduntant as one editor accuratly pointed out, see the final two points in Beliefs and practices that can be said to be distinctive of Jehovah's Witnesses include: under the heading Beliefs and Doctrines. --Duff

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? It's a compare-and-contrast of their attitudes towards freedom of expression for religious organizations versus for their own members. Is there some fine subtle point in there you don't get?

P.S. To sign posts, type ~~~~ at the end of them.Tommstein 07:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Advocation of "freedoms of expression by RELIGIONS AS ORGANIZATIONS" has absolutely nothing to do with baptized members. There's no compare/contrast, it's an unintelligible sentence. You could have it say: "While advocating freedom of expression, Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members...", but then it would become a misleading sentence as we don't really advocate freedom of expression. We certainly don't emphasize it in any way. On top of that, expression of contrary views by baptised members is already on the page under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. Duffer 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, the question at the end of my last post was supposed to be rhetorical.... I'm glad you could make up a completely different sentence that would be misleading, but no one is advocating for the sentence you just made up out of the blue. If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations, you must have missed the latest 'look at all we've done at the Supreme Court' rah rah session. The mention under Beliefs and Practices isn't contrasting their attitudes towards organizations versus individuals.Tommstein 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fighting to survive as a fringe religion in a predominately (and often hostile) evangelical nation forced upon us the need for litigation and certain guarantees to religious freedom. That is our "attitude towards organizations" (in case you missed any one of our meetings). That, in no way, is tantamount to advocation of other religious organisations. We advocate freedom of religion for OUR right to worship as we choose. In essence the paragraph is saying: We defended our civil rights in courts around the globe thus ensuring religious freedom, contrary to that, we shun baptized members who continuously seek to teach a contrary view. There's no sense in that sentence, there's no congruity, there's no relevance. Besides, how can you equate freedom of expression as an organisation, to freedom of expression of an individual? Especially since the individual FREELY CHOOSES to be part of said religion? It doesn't make any sense. And really, how is that relevant to the 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments' section? Duffer 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Freely chooses? What a joke. People are talked into believing the religion by coercion and false promises. They are not free to leave without unfavourable consequences and so they feel like prisoners once they are made aware of the false teachings, such as 607BC. Therefore, it is not a free choice. In any case, the baptism question indicating recognition of the Society's supposed authority is invalid because there is no evidence of "God's spirit" directing the organization. It is an abuse of human rights the way former members are treated for refusing to live a lie.

If you can't play by the rules of the club, then get out. How is that not a free choice? "..coercion and false promises.." Sorry little Timmy, God took your daddy because he needed in him heaven, as for your mommy, she's going to hell because she was so grief stricken that she took her own life. She'll be punished there for all eternity in fire and brimstone, here's a complimentary bible, please drive through. "..unfavourable consequences", like what? You lose association with people who you no longer agree with anyways? If you call that an abuse of human rights then you better re-read your bible (2 Thess 3:36, 11, 13-15; 1 cor. 5:5, 11, 13; 2 John 9-11). Excuse us for creating a worldwide society based on biblical principles, rules, and guidelines to keep itself, and ourselves, morally clean (Catholicism anyone?). Duffer 10:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowing that something simply isn't true isn't quite the same as "not playing by the rules". (And throwing in some lame argument about how some other religion is also wrong (poor little Timmy) does not diminish any wrongdoing of the Witnesses and is just pathetic.) In the normal people world, people who don't share the same religious beliefs can still be friends, and are not faced with being ostracized by their family and supposed friends. None of the scriptures referred to have any relevance to a person who realises that there are errors in JW teachings, yet they are ostracized all the same, often by family members who are guilted by the organization into not talking to them.

How is following biblical guidelines and principles "pathetic" and "wrong", when a person knows full well what's what at baptism. The above scriptures are in regards to those worthy of excommunication, would you like me to post scriptures related to those who doubt their faith? Actually, yes those passages are directly related to ostracising excommunicated members (how could 2 Thess 3:13-15 be any clearer?). JWs have friends who hold differing religious views, however, the bible is very specific about people who have known the truth, then turned away from it. "..guilted by the organization.." to do what? Follow biblical guidelines? It is the biblically prescribed method of discipline, as a society that unflinchingly adheres to the guidelines, principles, rules set forth in the bible, we follow this one as well (obviously), lest we be hypocrites. Duffer 13:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is getting off topic. Regardless of our individual views on how great/awful JW doctrine/practices are, this isn't the place to discuss it. Let's focus on improving the articles. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I won't stop defending my faith regardless of venue. Duffer 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the bright side, you're creating more opportunities to defend your faith by causing people to ignore you for becoming a known spammer.Tommstein 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's more absurd than your paragraph. Since I was the one defending against provocation, what would that make Jeffro? Duffer 17:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was clearly referring to your chest-thumping assertion that you "won't stop" in response to Konrad West's request to stop, not what you did before that. Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time.Tommstein 18:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravado was not my intent; you have a peculiar way of reading intent into what I type. And I was clearly referring to your grammar: "you're creating more opportunities to defend your faithby causing people to ignore you.." makes as little sense as the paragraph you so adamantly defend(ed?). It would properly read something like: "You're losing more oppurtunities to defend your faith...", saying you were "clearly referring" to something, isn't exactly true. That's not a straw-man. Ironically, you accuse me of spamming (when I did nothing more than defend against an absurd, off-topic, allegation, (as I am right now.. again..) then you accuse me of being insulting to others. Duffer 18:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.Tommstein 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What ever happened to: "Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time."? I'm requesting arbitration, this war is counterproductive, and outright rediculous.Duffer 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Update*, apparently I am unable to request arbitration as it's the final option in conflict resolution, other options must be exhausted first. We need to avoid eachother, conduct a survey, get 3rd party input, request advocacy, request mediation, then finally, request arbitration. For the sake of accuracy and truth I would persure all of the above options if I had the time. My internet is getting shut off tomarrow. I hope you, Tomm, can come to some form of civility and reasonableness. Also, reverting more than 3 times within a 24 hour period (edit waring) is an officially bannable offense, something we are both guilty of. Duffer 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please cease the slandering and insulting of other users.Tommstein 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In your latest revision: "(please address any literacy deficiencies you may have elsewhere; wikipedia cannot, and should not, be written at a third-grade level for the benefit of those who read at said level)". You are unbelievable man. Duffer 19:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Note both that I referred to any deficiencies "you may have," not that "you do have," and that the statements regarding being unable to read the sentence emanated from you yourself, not me.Tommstein 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I clarified that they only believe in freedom for themselves. Happy?Tommstein 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia Tom. Your newest addition is more misleading and inane than the original; and in no way fixes the substantial problems with the paragraph. You are not being reasonable or objective. Duffer 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You spent pretty much an entire paragraph above complaining that "We advocate freedom of religion for OUR right to worship as we choose," no one else's, and then, when that is inserted into the article, you complain that it is even worse? The only difference between the previous version and my newly-amended version is the insertion of that fact that you so adamantly complained about like three paragraphs up. You need to make up your mind. You can't have your cake and eat it too, at least around here.Tommstein 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You specifically stated: "If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations.." that is a far cry from the generalized "freedom of religion" (which we do advocate). I was merely rebutting your rediculous bluster by pointing out to you we litigate in our behalf, we advocate religious freedom, we do NOT advocate other religious organizations. Now address the specifics of why I delete your paragraph:

1 - The first sentence is literally unintelligible (your latest version, and the original).

2 - The remainder of the paragraph can be found under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. It is redundant and unnecessary.

3 - Not a single part of the paragraph has anything at all to do with the "Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments" topic.

Duffer 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you advocate "generalized 'freedom of religion'," but not freedom for other organizations? Pray tell, who exactly do you envision as recipients of this "generalized 'freedom of religion'," single Martians? Nevertheless, regardless of how bogus your story there is, I still changed the paragraph to reflect just what you said, that you advocate it for yourselves and yourselves alone. And now you still complain. Tough. Make up your mind. And again, this compare-and-contrast cannot be found elsewhere in the article. If you can think of a better section to put it in, tell us. If not, quit complaining about the section it's in. At present you're just flinging crap all over the walls, hoping something sticks, and complaining when something sticks somewhere you were really hoping it wouldn't.

Oh yeah, and it was probably wise of you to belatedly delete that "What's the matter with you?" remark.Tommstein 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it to avoid further provocation of an unreasonable person. Don't put this on me, i've explained several times, in great detail, why this paragraph needs deletion. Two other wikipedians agree with me, yes they are JWs as well, but i'm certain any objective wikipedian, JW or not, would agree with me too. This is not a "make up your mind" scenario. I have not contradicted myself, there is nothing to make up my mind about. You've thrown up a smokescreen of obfuscation to circumlocute my rather valid points for deletion (is this what you tell yourself in your mind to validate your unreasonableness?). Any non-JW here care to set Tomm straight? Duffer 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When you find it within yourself to respond to my points instead of engaging in name-calling and waving your arms around incoherently I might respond.Tommstein 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing Tomm. Since you've given up on defending your position, here, I hope you will likewise abandon your defence of unintelligible grammar and redundancy on the main article. Duffer 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.Tommstein 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing with Duffer on all three points. The first sentence is a mess and is misleading. JWs advocate religious freedom from governments, not other peoples' religious views. That distinction should be simple and clear but is totally obfuscated by that paragraph. Furthermore the paragraph is in the wrong place and is already covered elsewhere in the article. I agree that it should be removed. -- uberpenguin 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Who could have foreseen that the Jehovah's Witness contingent would agree with itself that an unflattering comparison has to go. What's next, KKK members being unanimous that black people suck? Five in five NAMBLA members condemning a condemnation of boy love? For a more substantial reply to things I have already replied to, read around the page.Tommstein 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Duffer and uberpenguin. The statement presents selected facts and utilizes sentence structure in such as way as to suggest a factual statement, when in reality it is comparing two realms of influence that are essentially exclusive. Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses volutarily accept the way in which the organization conducts itself internally, including the discipline and/or removal of members for violations they may commit. As an organization, Witnesses will fight for and defend their right to conduct themselves in this manner among voluntary participants. Witnesses do not attempt to impose legal sanctions on those not accepting their views; such a concept would be illegal in most countries, and likewise violate the Witness principle of separation from political entities. The terms of full membership are clear. Furthermore, religious and legal/civil views are separate, and especially so in the minds of Witnesses. Therefore, Tommstein's statement cannot be viewed as a neutral point of view OR factually accurate. - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Rarely have so many words been expended in saying so little of actual relevance. About the only thing I could gather that matters is that the two things are different. Well, who would have ever thought that when you compare and contrast two different things, the things would be different? I personally find comparing and contrasting the exact same thing with itself much funner. Apparently the compare-and-contrast is a literary technique that few Jehovah's Witnesses have ever come across in whatever reading they do.Tommstein 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to put in my two pence worth. I have kept out of this one, but I can see both points. If your grumble is with the wording/grammar style of Tom's paragraph, then why are you not just correcting it as you see, instead of deleting it altogether? The points he is trying to make, as I see it, is the hypocritical situation where the Watch Tower Society demands its rights to function, criticise, say and do as it pleases with all its freedoms intact, and no punitive or legislative restrictions on these "religious freedoms" put in place. The second even the smallest restriction appears they cry "persecution", but at the same time they strip their members of a large body of their human rights, and freedoms (members are not warned or aware of this at their naïve baptismal stage), the same rights the Watch Tower and JWs in general would term "persecution" if its done to them as a body by some government. This demand for "freedom of speech" at the same time of totally denying it for their own members is something hypocritical and deserves to have a mention, as it is a problem that ruins some lives, and breaks up family units, friendships, and has a massive impact on individuals, also the way the Watch Tower does this has little or no scriptural backing.

I hear people saying, "but they can just leave the religion", but you all know well this is not the case (and it's a straw man). To leave is to have half their life messed up, and if all their friends and relatives are JWs, this can be an isolating and devastating situation. I know a few JWs who do not believe in the Watch Tower's doctrines anymore, but they stay just to keep their families and loved ones together. If someone said to JWs in a hostile country, "well this is the law of the land, if you don't like it then you know where the airport is!" All the JWs here would protest the unreasonableness of that advice, but then blindly fail to see the same situation in their own religion, and the terrible things they do to each other fooling themselves "it's for Jehovah", when in fact, it's not a Biblical requirement to follow the unsubstantiated doctrines of the New York book publishing religious group, and therefore not for Jehovah at all. This one rule for the group's freedoms and another for the individual's is neither scriptural or reasonable, and should have a mention, as it is a major criticism of the religion, especially the slanderous way it deals with ex-members, but then it hypocritical screams martyrdom when any government or body dares to say the slightest non-flattering thing about JWs, or their Watch Tower Society. The paragraph could be like the one I have written below. Anyway, I've said my bit, I'm sure you can all deride it now, or pretend you didn't even see it.

"While Jehovah's Witnesses demand and defend well their freedom to preach, teach, and spread their doctrines throughout the countries of the world without persecution, or any kind of restrictions to personal liberties and human rights, this freedom is not equalled in their treatment of their own individual members' rights. Individuals who openly ask too many questions, who do not conform, or who disbelieve any of the accepted doctrines of the religion, often find their rights and freedom of speech are highly restricted, often with a real thread of excommunication and shunning by family and friends hanging over them if their choose to exercise their freedom of speech, or freedom of thought by not submissively conforming to the groups strict allegiance to officially accepted doctrinal interpretations. This has often lead to criticisms of hypocrisy in the religion, especially from members who have left, due to their ostracized and often slandered experiences and personal restrictive treatment from the religion, this in direct opposite contrast to what the religion demands are "its right and freedoms" as a body to say and believe as they wish, and fight for in the legal courts of the world to preserve these freedoms." Central 16:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said Central. As this issue won't die, I'm going to put my two cents in too. As Central mentioned, if a passage is disputed, the best way to resolve it is to rewrite it, not delete it. As uberpenguin mentioned, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to highlight irony or hypocrisy. However, as Central wrote in his suggested paragraph, ex-members and critics do claim the JW are hypocrtical. That is an encyclopedic fact that should be in the article. The matter really is how to word it.

A lot more progress would be made if the antagonism between active JWs and ex-JWs was put aside. Everyone, please assume good faith and work on rewriting, not stubbornly deleting or leaving in a disputed passage. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph looks fine to me, factually. Heck, I didn't write the paragraph in question, so I don't really care how it says what it says, I just had a problem with the comparison being removed, for ostensibly some of the most idiotic reasons and non-reasons ever beheld by man, woman, animal, or house plant. The problem I think your version has, though, is that it does actually seem to delve more into what the current version was accused of, of repeating too much stuff regarding their disfellowshipping policies that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Just my opinion, of course.Tommstein 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom, feel free to improve it, and then post it up if you want to, as long as it states the double standards that's fine by me.

I also noticed someone (IP 70.120.194.51) has done a cheeky edit and removed the tax-free status paragraph of the Watch Tower, did everyone else miss that? It would also be improved if it stated that the Watch Tower is being prosecuted over its tax evasion in France, which's yet another double standard. They as a group try to dodge "paying Caesar's things to Caesar" at every opportunity and evade contributing to the community with needed taxes, but would hypocritically excommunicate members if they did the same as individuals. One other point in regards to taxes that is ironic, is that governments of the world according to JW doctrine are "allowed their place by decreed of Jehovah are used to merit out justice on his behalf", the rest of the world is satanic and not supposedly used by Jehovah. We have the situation in France where the Watch Tower have been done for tax evasion by "Jehovah's duly allowed governments", and they are running to Satan's European court of Human Rights, to do battle with God over His taxes! "Please help us Satan, as Jehovah is taxing us though his appointed governments, as we don't want to pay Him!" Regards. Central 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that edit, but I wasn't sure what to make of it, since I don't know much about the subject. I figured someone who knows more about it than me would come by and fix whatever needed fixing, but apparently either it doesn't need fixing or no one wants to do it.Tommstein 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the issues here is that the paragraph makes a big deal about something that is typical of almost every Christian denomination. I pose the question to you, what does, for example, the Catholic Church historically call any member who openly disagrees with their core doctrines and the direction of the Papacy? What notable Christian denominations allow their adherents to believe and preach whatever they want in opposition to the Church's doctrine, while still calling themselves adherents to that particular religion?

Making statements about the personal feelings of those who have been disfellowshiped for one reason or another is certainly a point of view and doesn't fall into line with Wikipedia's editing policy of using a "hopefully optimistic" tone, therefore I don't feel your paragraph is really an improvement over what is already being contested. This sort of thing would be tantamount to visiting the article on Catholicism and starting to add text explaining why some of those who have left that particular denomination believe the Church is hypocritical. I seriously doubt that would go over very well with the editors of that particular article, so why should it be considered here? I do apologise for using Catholicism as an example, and I appreciate your useful input so far. -- uberpenguin 20:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You made a point about Catholics. They (individual Catholics) would not be excommunicated for merely discussing, or even doubting some of the accepted doctrines of the Church. I know a few Catholics, and have met many more over the years who have all manner of beliefs, questions and opinions that are not church doctrines, and I have never heard any of them say they have been excommunicated, or even threatened with it for questioning or disagreeing on any particular church teaching. The Catholic Church allows free debate and doubt, without abusing the rights of members to think, question, doubt and make up their own minds, if they feel there is not enough evidence to back a particular teaching. That is in stark contrast to the Watch Tower Society, as you are well aware, and is reinforced with their latest mags for January about reading or seeing any material that is not from the Watch Tower is "of the devil and apostate", and must not even be considered, let alone read and discussed. Can you imagine how the Watch Tower Society would react if some government said that about them and their literature! The freedoms the Watch Tower demands are not the freedom they give, and that is grossly hypocritical, especially when they make such a big noise about how they have brought about this or that change for free speech. As for your comment on "personal feelings", you are creating a red-herring, as you are well aware of the facts of what happens to members who do not accept all the JW doctrines, and that many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation. How members feel about this does not change the facts of how their rights are dealt with, viewed, and treated.

The most sincere Christians have been disfellowshipped and shunned for merely having private conversations about dates like 1914, the number 144,000 etc., and as you are aware this kind of mind control, and punishment is not found in the vast majority of Christendom (or the Bible), to use them as you brought them up, and this is not a "personal opinion" but factual. And since when do JWs mimic what other religions do as an acceptable norm? Regardless of personal feelings, the facts remain that there is a broad dichotomy of what Jehovah's Witnesses demand as "their human rights", and how they view those same rights for individual members. This is a major point that stands out all the more than most religions, especially due to the obsessing jumping to call on 'Satan's Worldly courts' to help them every two minutes when they feel they have had some real or imaginary restriction placed on their ability to vend their literature and spread their doctrines. Unfortunately the same freedoms and openness are hypocritically removed from individual members' rights, and this is a major point that deserves some publicity, and has massive personal consequences on members' lives and families, and also on JWs as a religion, with them often being labelled high control, manipulative, and cult-like in behaviour because of the way they treat their members. Central 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You raise a good point that the number of excommunications by the Catholic church in later days is low, probably oustandingly low. Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low. Of course it's unlikely that any person expressing doubt or discontent about some Catholic view would be excommunicated on the spot, and the same goes for JWs. Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS. Again using the Catholic example, if a member of the Church disagreed with the authority of the Vatican or perhaps some core Catholic tradition and began to express his/her views to others in his Church and try to sway them to their point of view, would there be absolutely no reprocussions for him? Would the local priests sit by and tolerate that person's directly contradicting some of the Church's teachings? I'd imagine not. Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights; you can't rightly call something 'worship' if it requires absolutely no changes in your actions. However, that's obviously not the point here. The point is that it isn't this article's job to attempt to point out the hypocrisy you perceive in JW practises. Making factual statements like "JWs who teach doctrine that conflict with that of the WBTS are disfellowshipped" is fine, making a statement like (if I may quote you), "... many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation" is not acceptable since it is your own point of view. To directly address that point for just a moment, the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs; the story of Korah's rebellion in this context is often cited by JW literature and talks. I don't mean to digress, but the point is that JWs certainly DO find a scriptural backup in this principle, and I'd appreciate it if you would be more careful to stick to the matter at hand rather than going into asides about doctrines that you don't perceive as being Bible based.

So I'll do the same and stick to the point at hand. It is again, not the place of this article to make statements or collect things together in such a way as to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy. The article already states how JWs label apostates, and it also states how JWs defend their rights as an organization in court. That is sufficient and factual. It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions. Our issue here hasn't been that the information isn't factual, but that it subdly suggests to the reader that there is some hypocrisy present, and that the text is out of place and redundant in the scope of the article.

As for the matter of 'mind control' that often comes up when we discuss things here, that is neither something that could be proved nor agreed upon. Obviously the JW editors here would object wholeheartedly to being labeled this way, and obviously you and other editors feel strongly about this. I would ask that you please don't keep trying to bring this up. We are all reasonable adults here, we all spend a lot of time watching and editing this and other articles, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate leaving labels and name calling out of this. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, and I'll do my best to do the same that I ask. Edit Note that I didn't quote you because I thought you might include that sentence in the article, and I realize that POV is fair game on talk pages. I was merely citing an example of the kind of verbiage that is unacceptable in the article. -- uberpenguin 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low." Yes, they are low due to the massive and crushing oppression that having all your family and friends turned against you, and labelled as a "wicked apostate", for daring to think for yourself. The Watch Tower's high control and devastating consequences are very real, just as they were in many communist countries (and still are in North Korea). One thought out of line and off you went to the Gulag concentration camp (if you were lucky), or shot in the head as an example if you were not so lucky. You made an incorrect statement by saying: "Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS." This is not the case at all. One only has to believe something that is not in line with the interpretations and doctrines of the Watch Tower and this is enough to be labelled apostate and disfellowshipped if not immediately reversed. They do not have to teach or spread a non-subservient thought or belief. As the Governing Body states in their letter to district and circuit overseers: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persist in believing other doctrines, . . .then he is apostatizing."-1 September 1980, letter to all Circuit and District overseers. As for your next point about the word, 'hypocrisy', are you saying it should be banned? It's just a word describing a situation where one thing is stated, and another contrary thing is practiced. It is a neutral and factual word you have already admitted is JW policy in regard to member's treatment compared to the group's demands: "Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights" to quote you. Just because you do not like a word, does not make it POV. Murder, rape, and torture are all words, be they unpleasant, but that does not remove their usage if they are factually correct, nor make them POV.

You make another point: "the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs". The glaring mistake you have made is the fact that there is no established scriptural authority of the Watch Tower Society, they merely presumptuously claim authority as "God's mouthpiece", if they don't actually act as if they are God Himself. The scriptures speak of rebellion of Christ and God, not the unique and often contradictory doctrines of the New York publishing company. The precedent you speak of is not found anywhere in scriptures, as the Bible gives zero authority or loyalty to the opinions, prophecies and doctrines of men and their organizations over those of God and Christ. You go on: "It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions." How can the reader draw a conclusion when the facts are missing? There are three paragraphs trumpeting the rights of JWs and their court battles, where is the balance? They make a very big noise and seek publicity in this regard, there should also be a clear section of information (not hidden in another section) demonstrating that although they have gained many freedoms, they refuse to give the same freedoms and treatment to their members, even seeking to control and litigate against freedom of thought, which by any standard is extremely cult-like and stinks of mind control, especially where the excommunication for a non-conforming thought can lead to the destruction of whole families, and lead in some cases to serve depression, nervous breakdowns and even suicide. If the way they treat the freedoms and rights of their members should be hidden (as you desire) then so should all this pile of information about their court battles, and trumpet blowing.

You say: "... 'many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation' is not acceptable since it is your own point of view." Can you give some examples of where these dates and their meaning 1799, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, 1994 are found in scriptures? Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation. Many excommunications were carried out due to Witnesses not believing many of the woolly teachings that have no scholarly backup, like the authority of an organization claiming to be a unique channel of God, 144,000/great crowd, two classes, and when the last days began etc., and yet not accepting the "unique doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" will and does lead to expulsions, so please don't do down that road!

If the main article is to have three paragraphs on governments, and court battle for freedom of speech, then at least one paragraph of those should show the double standard, that they demand one set of "freedoms" (claiming its persecution and abuse of Human rights not have them) and then deny the very same things to their own members, this is not POV, but a fact based in their practices and doctrines. Central 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You should read the first chapter of Crisis of Conscience, it addresses your 'everyone else is/would be as bad as us' story directly. Not that you're going to, but then you're just leaving room to continue getting shot down over many things the book addresses.Tommstein 19:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The way Jehovah's Witnesses treat ex-members, be they family, lifelong friends, or anything else, just might have something to do with why this aspect isn't treated like it is with less-extreme religions.Tommstein 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a very strong POV to compare socialization restrictions within a nonviolent religious group to MURDER, RAPE, TORTURE and other atrocities committed by dictatorial and communist political regimes.

Central, you said, "Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation." Horsehockey! That is the biggest presumption of fact I've heard yet. I have two words for that: PROVE IT.

Here's two words for you. FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE.

This environment is an academic one; this is not a place for you to assume a stance based on opinions for which you have no facts. The only people claiming that JWs are a more extreme organization are those who cannot accept the terms of membership. You say so many are pressured by social forces to remain compliant; I say so many more are attracted by what they see as Biblical truth. But NEITHER opinion belongs in this article if they are not presented as facts. Are you suggesting that a signifcant percentage of the global, or even American, congregation secretly dissents? Baloney. When they joined, many of them distanced themselves from family, friends, and so forth. They felt the need based on their newfound faith. So now you say they have to go through it again because they no longer accept that faith? I say it stands to reason that if they felt so strongly in converting themselves the first time, little to nothing prevents them from repeating the process for something they feel more strongly about. Your arguments holds little weight, insomuch as you do not have a good read on the minds of every member of the congregations worldwide. You presume that those with whom you speak represent a greater number than you know for certain, either through their suggestion or your assumption. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Certainly it is factual to represent thier views, but it is not fair to suggest by means of precise or clever wording that one set of views is more prevalent when you do not have facts to support it. - CobaltBlueTony 16:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello CobaltBlueTony, I will address some of your many Straw men and red herrings in your post. First you bring up a Straw man: "I think it is a very strong POV to compare socialization restrictions within a nonviolent religious group to MURDER, RAPE, TORTURE. . ." Where you have gone off on a Straw man tangent is clear, and what is "socialization restrictions" supposed to mean in your JW double speak? The subject was the religion's demands for its rights as a group, and another contrasting treatment it merits out to its individual members and their rights. Why you have to bring in the red-herring about "murder, rape and torture" I do not know. I imagine you misread the other paragraph about using a simple word not being POV, even if it were an unpleasant word, and you confused it in your mind with the later paragraph about communist oppression and thought control/punishment. I suggest you re-read the whole section, and stop mixing your metaphors and protesting things that were not said. You also seem to be saying that oppressive abuse of Human Rights and Freedoms is ok as long as it's non-violent?

You go on: "Central, you said, 'Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation.' Horsehockey! That is the biggest presumption of fact I've heard yet. I have two words for that: PROVE IT." Well I know of one person disfellowshipped, and others who have been severely disciplined and threatened for just discussing the lack of evidence for 1914 being a special year, and there were several leading members of the Watch Tower Society in 1980 that were expelled for just that, they being Cris Sánchez, and his wife Nestor Kuilan who were long time members Bethel, and René Vázques (he worked many years on the Service Department) and his wife were also disfellowshipped for alleged "apostasy" for private conversations. Why don't you write to the Watch Tower Society and ask them if its okay to not believe that 1914 has any relevance at all, or that God does not use organizations, or that the last days began in 33AD, not 1914, and see what their reply is. Then there is also the letter they sent to all circuit and district overseers stating one only had to believe something different from the "faithful and indiscreet slave" class to be guilty of apostasy. If you reject their words on the matter, then whose words do you accept? The proof is in the pudding. Write to them if you think you have such freedom to think for yourself and disbelieve what you choose with Christian Freedom.

You go on: "Here's two words for you. FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE." Yes, I have some, I already said I know several JW who do not accept many of the Watch Tower's interpretations, but they keep quite as they know the consequences from daring to think for themselves as free Christians. They love their family more than the Watch Tower, so keep quite to preserve their loved ones from the persecution, slander and family break-up that often occurs when JWs do not conform to all the Watch Tower's doctrines, many doctrines whose flimsy foundation they were not informed about their before they got baptized. You said: "You say so many are pressured by social forces to remain compliant; I say so many more are attracted by what they see as Biblical truth." You are saying two different things! Being initially attracted to something, is not the same as finding out that you have been duped, and feeling pressure to keep quite as you know you will be severly punished if you don't. New members are not told about all the controversy, and are never given any detailed or accurate history of the organisation they are being drawn into. If you feel they all stay because they think it's "The Truth©", then remove any consequences for not believing X, or Y, and see how many still believe all the weaker doctrines that most Bible scholars just laugh at. Mind you, you are just bringing all this up to distract the main point of the Watch Tower's double standards, trying to justify them does not remove them from existing, and yet that is what you appear to be trying to do. The rest of what you come out with is just hot air, pure and simple. An example here: "Are you suggesting that a significant percentage of the global, or even American, congregation secretly dissents?" It's irrelevant! Why are you making this stuff up? Who cares, the policy is of one rule for the Organization, and another for the individual, and all the other stuff you come out with is totally off topic and just a smoke screen to blur the real issue, and you do it in typical JW reality-dodging fashion.

Your next Straw Man: "When they joined, many of them distanced themselves from family, friends, and so forth. They felt the need based on their newfound faith. So now you say they have to go through it again because they no longer accept that faith? I say it stands to reason that if they felt so strongly in converting themselves the first time, little to nothing prevents them from repeating the process for something they feel more strongly about." Besides your point being totally off topic, and irrelevant, you make an extremely bad argument. You unknowingly or willingly appear to not care if something is based on free will, or oppressive pressure, persecution, and punishment. Those who choose to leave some friends for the sake of the Watch Tower's wishes, have chosen that, understand? Those who find out more about the Watch Tower organization and feel they have been conned, lied to, and tricked, are not choosing to destroy their family and friendships, they are having that oppressive force put on them as a manipulative control measure. It's as different as someone jumping or being pushed, one is suicide, the other is murder, they are not the same thing! Choosing to leave someone is not the same as someone making them leave you by threats, abuse, punishment, slander and intimidation. It's very interesting you cannot see the difference, which again is cult-like. But I bet you will magically see the difference if your religion were treated this way by some government, it would be all too clear and instantly classed as "persecution, oppression, and abuse of our Human Rights and Freedoms".

You then say: "you do not have a good read on the minds of every member of the congregations worldwide" 1. It's irrelevant and a straw man, and 2. I never said I did, and 3. Neither do you! Then you say even more hot air: "You presume that those with whom you speak represent a greater number than you know for certain, either through their suggestion or your assumption". I presume nothing, it's you who is making all this stuff up, and doing all the presumption/fantasy, and again, it's irrelevant, and makes no difference to the Watch Tower's treatment of individuals freedoms compared their own demanded freedoms as an organization. Again, CobaltBlueTony, you really need to learn to stick to the subject, but I also understand that diversion, smoke screens, Straw men are a profession pastime of the religion you follow, so they can hide their true motives, doctrines and history. So, I will forgive you this time and not take offence, as I see you are a victim of the system you were seduced into. Please note, 99% of your above comments have no impact at all on the doctrinal reality of the Watch Tower's treatment of its individual member's freedoms compared the Watch Tower Society's demands for its own freedoms as an organization, that is the point, please learn to stick to it! Central 11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang, that's about 100% more effort than I was willing to waste responding to that stuff.Tommstein 18:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I type quickly! :-) Mind you, it's like trying to get blood from a stone, that is, trying to get some common sense from JWs who have had their reasoning powers so badly damaged. Central 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'Tis why I didn't bother with a response. God could step down here and hold a press conference denouncing this religion, and most would still not leave it (certainly those that edit here). And what am I to compete with that? If any of these people are interested in learning the truth about their religion, instead of what their religion wants them to know about their religion, there's the whole big Internet out there with more stuff than they could read in a lifetime. My personal time is too important to piss it away on people that I know aren't going to listen before I even write.Tommstein 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you are good at establishing something as fact simply by saying it's true! The points I addressed were in the statements made above. You've simply chosen to think/believe/say that they are not relevant, so BING! Look at that! They are now irrelevant! You should work for a politician's press secretary.

Because you don't like a belief, and the proofs offered for it, you dismantle it in the following ways:

• Claim it is a control measure, effectively creating a hot-button issue over a minor point where there was no issue.
• Claim it has no or scant Biblical proof, a wildly UNacademic position to take if I ever saw one.
• Claim offense at an editor's position based on some contrived or narrowly-held rules of engagement.
• Compare a religious group to society as a whole.
• Accuse other editors of being duped or abused themselves, or cohorting in some conspiracy to deliberately control people.

The point here is to be academically accurate. Anyone can publish a book, and anyone can have a bad (or good) experience. No other religious group referenced by Wikipedia undergoes this sort of split-hairs microscopic dismantling, do they? The sheer volumes of disparaging discussion, backed up by whatever scrap of data one can mold to appear relevant and accurate, has become unprofessional, unscholarly, and downright exhausting. There is such a thing as overthinking. Do think that if you think aobut something until it is ripped down to the molecular level, you'll understand it? Religious groups are what they are. Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the history of other religions wherein whole communities or nations compel through REAL abuse, torture, coercion, etc. We are imperfect human beings, sincere in our efforts to grasp the divine. This is a point you seem to utilize only to discredit us; then you want us to have developed a perfect system for addressing every concern you feel is relevant. I doubt completely that you have ever had this discussion with a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Muslim. It is EASY to punch academic or semantic holes in religious ideas, especially if you think differently. This is not the point of this set of articles. The main article should NOT address in detail every major or minor point; the main article should OVERVIEW the main points of belief of the oranization and its members, and reference other article INTO the main one as appropriate -- NOT with the intensity YOU feel regarding the topic. THIS IS THE RELEVANT PART!

I deeply regret any error on the part of elders and other individuals within the organization. I sincerely beleive that God will hold those to account that have transgressed while knowing so, and especially those that have treated the flock with abusive speech. I have YET to see this of my own accord. I only hear of it from disgruntled people. I yearn for the 'faithful slave' to continue to understand their role in God's purpose, and for the understanding of that to be clear to everyone interested. Of course you do not accept the Governing Body as having any relationship with God. Otherwise you would be one of Jehovah's Witnesses as well. Why you persist in wasting your time with a group of people ou vehemently disagree with is beyond me. My suggestion is to exert your energies towards positive activities, and let other people make their own choices regarding religion.

To make a choice regarding a religious persuasion is an expression of freedom that was unheard of to people hundreds of years ago, and all over the world there are still people compelled to adhere to their community's belief structure through all sorts of unkind, inhumane means. It is a system that is as old as civilization itself, and everyone still knows somewhere in their hearts that it is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are largely people who have attempted to escape this in favor of something they have found refreshing and rewarding. "Dedicated and baptized" Witnesses who have had the experiences you are so adamant in highlighting have in my opinion missed something fundamental, but I recognize, irrespective of my views, that people's thoughts change. People should NOT stay with a faith because of family and friends, because faith is such an intimate and personal choice. Neither should they LEAVE a faith, or avoid one because of family and friends. God doesn't judge families; He judges individuals on their choices alone. No one said choices like these were easy, nor can one expect such a transition to be socially insignificant. This is life; this is how imperfect humanity reponds to a change like this. Anything remotely abusive is obviously evaluated by God in judging those individuals involved. What we do, how we do it, and our motivations for doing so are ALL subject to divine justice -- as well as divine mercy, "for He well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust."

Bottom line: volatile experiences like this ARE a POV. Bad experiences involving Catholic priests, police officers, African-Americans all are clear evidence of how the devisive behavior of a few can tarnish the image of the entire group. WIKIPEDIANS SHOULD WORK AGAINST THIS IN EVERY FORM. If negative perceptions are to be included in an article about any religion, they should be introduced IN A FAIR AND BALANCED manner. This is the conduct expected in this forum. Every editor here, JW as well as non-JW, is expected to follow this guiding principle while participating in this endeavor. You need to recognize that your views, as well as the views of those with whom you have spoken, are JADED, and are not representative of the spirit sought by the majority Witnesses (dare I say an overwhelming majority?); the perception of a few do not merit domination over a fair, academically sound, and respectable article. Just as this article should not be a platform for dissemination, so it should not be a vehicle for unbalanced, agenda-based negative scrutiny. - CobaltBlueTony 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's crazy to be wary of Jehovah's Witnesses "being duped or abused themselves, or cohorting in some conspiracy to deliberately control people" when they have religious marching orders to lie and deceive.

P.S. I quit reading about halfway through that. Please cease using Wikipedia to preach.Tommstein 17:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you have WTBTS literature that says "lie to the flock," or deceive the flock," THEN you can make that spurious and inflammatory accusation in this academic setting. Until then, STOP making false statements about Jehovah's Witnesses. How can one assume good faith in YOUR editing when you so blatantly and unabashedly ADMIT a strong and immutable BIAS against Witnesses and their organizations?

This editing process NEEDS both you and I (representative of our particular camps) to come to a neutral point of view within the guidelines of the Wikpedia Wikipedia:NPOV. The resulting point of view won't actually be a point of view at all, but rather "when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." I maintain that your edits are deliberate in trying to do this as a natural consequence of your viewpoint or trough a conscious effort -- I do not know which; and therefore, you are not editing faithfully according to the standards of this forum.

Another significant point is that your edits place undue weight or significance to your point of view. Wikipedia NPOV makes this point:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I understand that you feel very strongly about my faith. But you have no right to characterize it the way you have been doing through your incindiary edits. Perhaps you don't realize that you are genuinely HURTING people who practice their religion in good faith, and without pretense or subversion. Such a thing exists; otherwise you would be equally guilty of the very thing you accuse Witnesses of doing. How YOU feel about it IS a valid viewpoint to address in ancillary articles, or as minor subtopics, but you are insistent on spreading biased language throughout these articles, all the while trampling on the good faith of Witness Wikipedians.

I offer a Wikipedian method for resolution here. A great idea on how to resolve this would be to mention that "opponents of the faith maintain that [some belief or practice of Witnesses] mens this or results in that (insert view here)." What we need to establish is the relevance of these points, and their placement within or adjacent to the main article. The views you represent, strong and intense as they are, do not reflect a majority opinion, even if you feel that you can rightly suggest that it more widespreadly and secretively held than it appears to be. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph: Straw man. Do read http://quotes.watchtower.ca/lie.htm if you haven't before though, and enlighten yourself regarding your religion's condoning lying.

Second paragraph: Ad hominem straw man.

Third paragraph: Straw man. There were no points of view expressed at all in any form, only two facts.

Fourth paragraph: Ad hominem red herring straw man (wow, the trifecta; let's see if we can get four in one paragraph). Believe it or not, Wikipedia's purpose is neither to serve as a Jehovah's Witness support group nor to provide a platform for Jehovah's Witnesses to preach their religion in the best light they possibly can. It is here to provide factual information; Jehovah's Witnesses who believe the facts are hurtful to their faith are welcome to not stray from the cozy pages of their religion's publications into that cold hard thing called reality, but the effect of the facts on their faith is irrelevant.

Fifth paragraph: Straw man, pretty much identical to third paragraph.

Well, that's about all the effort I'm putting into responding to this mess.Tommstein 07:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh brother! Here we go again. 95 percent of what you have just said is not remotely related to the issue in the government section on the main page. Most of your post is about "Because you don't like a belief". It is irrelevant what I like or don't like, you are just fabricating a massive straw man diversion. Policy is policy; a practise is a practise, regardless of someone disliking it or not, it's still a well-founded reality. The issue is about the reality of policy, not whether it's liked or not, or anything else! I will clarify the points, as the majority of your post is off topic, not just a bit, but massively.

• The Watch Tower Society is very verbal and litigious about its so-called "Human Rights and Freedoms of Expression". That is their stance.

• Any restriction on them at all that they perceive, even in the smallest way that might slow down their agenda, make them pay tax, affect their image, or conversion process is immediately and always deemed "an abuse, oppression, restriction, persecution (favourite term), mistreatment of our Human rights, abuse of our Free Speech, and inhumane etc.," and usually topped of with "Satan attacking us".

Please provide references that include the words "Satan attacking us" or closely similar. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link 1. I don't have time to find more now, but there are plenty on the Watch Tower's CD ROM.Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Watch Tower Society makes it very clear that anyone with merely "thoughts that do not conform", are liable to be labelled as "apostate" and excommunicated, along with the routine destruction of his or her relationships with others. Why you keep denying their own policies is ridiculous, they make it very clear in their literature, practises, and letters that this is the case. This again is factual (as you are already aware) and not an opinion.

Thoughts not expressed are an unknown factor. WT and elders are not psychic, so how would they know unless those thoughts are expressed? There are two ways one can go about this. One can express the view or doubt, allow the elders in private meetings to try to explain the belief(s) through scripture and literature on the topic, and either remain unconvinced yet cooperative, or accept the explanations for the time being if any doubt could be lingering. Or, one could argue, verbally wrestle, dispute, make personal attacks, disprespect the elders, and/or a number of other things. Since such behavior goes against the peaceableness and spirit of harmony sought after and promoted within the congregations, it is indicative of not only the thoughts of the member, but the spirit with which the member holds these ideas. It goes beyond mere doubt or confusion as to what the organization teaches. It is seen as a threat, not to the accepted authority structure, but the the harmonious goals of the entire organization, and to many values Jehovah's Witnesses have come to cherish and value as a core element of the organization. While you may see it as a control measure in secular and political terms, it is, in fact the desire of the vast majority of Witnesses to maintain this protection against devisive expressions that may sound divergent or contrary. It is in fact one of the things that attracts a good portion ofpeople to this religion; they are looking for religious and social harmony. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You set forth the dichotomy very well, ". . .either remain unconvinced yet cooperative, or accept the explanations for the time being". In other words, believe what we (the Governing Body of JWs) tell you, even though we have no evidence for it, or we will class you as "argumentative, verbally wrestling, disputing, making personal attacks, disrespectful of the elders, and/or a number of other things." There is no middle ground. For example, dare not to believe 1914 is a special date or relevant date, or that God does not use an organization, but uses Jesus, and you will have two options: 1. Repent of your evil apostasy and antichrist leanings and blindly accept what we demand is Truth© (using the trite and blasphemous phrasing "Trust in Jehovah"), regardless of it being exposed as non-biblical or reasonable from your own research. 2. Dare to believe what you feel is right in God's eyes, and we will label you will all manner of pejorative and slanderous tags, and then we will boot you out, destroy your family, and ban anyone from even saying 'hello' to you in the street. Now which is is? Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What Central said. Talk of being disrespectful and blah blah blah is a complete red herring, much like about 50% of this page. The letter to the overseers talked about believing an unapproved belief, not all the other stuff Cobaltbluetony tried to throw in there.Tommstein 07:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Individuals are not given these same rights by the very organization that claims it's a promoter of religious rights and freedoms. The very freedoms and rights it claims are fundamental to humans are hypocritically stripped away from members and given little or no consideration. (And this is the main point that should be in the article.)

I refute the statement that these rights are "stripped away." They are voluntarily given up. It is regrettable that some view this a some sort of secret, and a form of domineering control by the elders. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Their rights are not "given up", they just find they have none when they start to ask too many awkward questions. Members are not told before baptism they will have to lose their rights to disbelieve doctrines if there is not enough evidence to convince them otherwise, and the consequences if they do not conform. Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Cobaltbluetony's argument, governments don't 'strip away' rights either, since you are always welcome to leave the country, and if you don't leave then you're staying willingly and 'voluntarily giving up' these rights. You can't use the 'members are members voluntarily' defense for yourself without opening up the 'citizens and corporations are in the country voluntarily' defense for governments, also known as 'leave the country if you don't like it.'Tommstein 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• If members complain of the threats of excommunication along with slander, intimidation, and pejorative labelling by the organization, they are told "tough luck". If a government does the exact same thing to the Watch Tower Society, the Watch Tower Society will hypocritically scream from the rooftops "these are our fundamental Human Rights, this is outrageous, and we are being cruelly persecuted" but blindly fail to see that they do the same things to their own members.

Again, these statements are laced with emotion and bias based on your view of how things happen. You are referencing cases of which you seem to have some knowledge, but you do not, and cannot, address any other case that goes on behind closed doors that is neither handled in the way in which you stipulate, nor results in the socially and personally devastating consequences which you find so indicative of the people as a whole -- and remember, we are talking about 6.5 million people worldwide, not just those who could at least culturally relate to your accounts.

• Those are the points. One set of "Human rights" demanded by the Watch Tower as fundamental truths, and a rejection of those very same fundamental rights for the individual members by the very same Watch Tower Society. All other points you make are off topic. If it's persecution and abuse of Human Rights when a government places restrictions, then it is the same persecution and abuse of Human Rights when the Watch Tower does the exact same things to its members. Remember that scripture about 'two sets of measuring scales'?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not a majority in any nation or culture, and do not involve themselves in the political practices of the world. No Witness ever suffers loss of property as a direct result of interaction with some kind of storm trooper elders; no Witness ever is detained, physically restrained or abused, no mob of Witnesses gathers outside of the home of one of its members and taunts or abuses them. It is every member's right to either live willingly by the guidelines of the organization or to leave the community. That is all they are asked to do. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again your are projecting your own strange values (or lack of them) into the discussion, and what appears to be an unknowing admittance from you, that abuse of fundamental Human Rights and freedoms is ok, as long as you are not raping, mutilating, or burning their house down. In other words, abuse does not exist in the JW world unless it's physical, right? Mental, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, intimidation, threats and abuse are not a reality that can exist. Only the physical counts, very interesting. I suppose it's like the Watch Tower Society’s bizarre concept of truth and lies. A lie does not exist if the one hearing it is not in a position to know the information, this is bizarrely named, "Theocratic War Strategy". In other words, you can lie your arse off to non-JWs, and the Watch Tower can lie to the rank and file Witnesses and still twist reality into a non-lie. Ah, the fun of double speak, Orwellian reality, and cognitive dissonance. Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, all they suffer is 'spiritual death,' i.e., the most extreme penalty you can possibly, legally give them. Let's see what sentence we can create by changing a couple key words from those last two sentences: "It is every citizen's and corporation's right to either live willingly by the guidelines of the country or to leave the country. That is all they are asked to do." I guess the only question is, have you informed the headquarters that you think they should get their crap together and stop whining about government policies they don't like?Tommstein 07:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the rest of your post, about 'humans are imperfect' and what Catholics do or don't so, is white washing with no relevance at all, so please stop bringing heaps of off topic flannel here. You also make one statement that needs addressing: "If negative perceptions are to be included in an article about any religion, they should be introduced IN A FAIR AND BALANCED manner." You fail to see that I haven't even touched the article at all on the main page, and the points I have made above are factual practises of the Watch Tower, not my opinions, so they most definitely should be in the article.

There certainly seems to be a preoccupation with straw and flannel here. 'Humans are imperfect' addresses any manner in which members are treated that is inconsistent with our values, whether that is in error or willful. Witnesses do not take kindly to the accusations and abuses tossed around by agitated former members, but they do not ignore the problem. Elders are instructed -- ordered, even -- to conduct all disciplinary and sheparding activities with discretion, respect understanding and patience. Where they fail is the flaw of the person(s), not automatically of the system in place. The system in place is meant to resolve these issues, not go on a witch hunt. But with the resources you inflate to fill volumes of material, I highly doubt that statement means anything to you. Is it really so that you cannot accept the sincerity with which the majority of Witnesses practice their faith? Does your preoccupation with a handful of disgruntled former members so completely divert your attention away from what the rest of the Witnesses voluntarily claim and say and believe, so much so that you cannot produce an unbiased edit? - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides you going off on yet another red herring, you make an interesting comment: "Where they fail is the flaw of the person(s), not automatically of the system in place." Funny how it is the system that created the problem in the first place, and it is men and their designs that made the system, and also when the same applies to other religions this is immediately group classed as proof that they are false religions and God is not using them. Here we are again with two sets of measuring scales, to quote scripture. And the rules are from the top to the bottom, not he other way around, the Governing Body sets the rules, and restrictions, not the local elders. You then go deeper into the murky labyrinth world of subject diversions: "Is it really so that you cannot accept the sincerity with which the majority of Witnesses practice their faith?" What in heaven's sake has sincerity go to do with anything? Yes people were sincere when they joined thinking that they were in God's own approved and chosen organization, of course they were pleased, so were Moonies, Mormons, People's Temple, Japanese Aum Shinri Kyo cult, and Heaven's Gate. They all had many educated, intelligent members, bursting with sincerity, but did they know the full truth about the religions they got involved with? You tell me. Many are drawn to the JW religion in good faith, it's just they get one hell of a big shock when they do some detailed research, and then realise that they have not been given informed consent, or been shown the truth about the group they have joined, and that's when it gets nasty, and controlling, and their rights are abused. Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, your points are very good, but seriously, why do you waste your valuable time with this crap? I find that my model of responding to a red herring, straw man, etc. by simply stating that it was such for all posterity to see, if I even respond at all, to be rather efficient. Seriously, there are two possibilities here: one, you will make Cobaltbluetony and whoever else 'see the light,' and two, you're wasting your time responding to stuff riddled with so many logical flaws that it frightens small children and gives weak people chest pains. Need I assign probabilities to the two possible outcomes? Not telling you what to do with your time, obviously, but do you really see any expected benefit here?Tommstein 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom, the only reason I reply to this stuff, is in case even just one member of the public reads this and gets more aware of the machinations of the Watch Tower organization and their unenlightened members. I want people to see the truth. I really don't give a flying fig about whether any JWs who post here open their eyes and start to question all their previously held blind assumptions that they have for "The Truth©". They have a choice to self-deceive, and that is up to them. As you have said, reality is not so nice, and many prefer to create their own artificial reality as a comfort, and enjoy being in a religion that helps sustain that mirage. All being wrong together seems more preferable to them than being right, and isolated out alone in the cold. Even if just one member of the public who comes across the JW page, starts to think and analyse all they might have been told by someone JW who gives them the magazines etc., then I feel I have accomplished something. I'm sure there are many people who are not clued up on this religion, who may just read here, and never post. I just want them to get as many facts as possible, and learn to think and analyse all information before they might get involved with this religion and its accompanying Pandora's box. Mind you, I have wasted more time exposing the endless diversions JWs will go to hide from the subject points they fear so much. I guess that just demonstrates to others how manipulated and twisted some of their thought processes can be, especially with the blind inability to see realities that are in direct contradiction to each other and yet many JWs still hold them up as "reasonable"; it's all a good reason and example to never underestimate the power of denial. Central 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

One last point for you to ponder on, you said with force: "Claim it has no or scant Biblical proof, a wildly UNacademic position to take if I ever saw one." Can you enlighten us with the Biblical proof (that means in the Bible not the Watch Tower's literature), the proven dates for 1799, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1975, 1994. And also for the last days and Jesus enthronement as ruling King beginning in 1914, and not 33AD as the Bible indicates at Matthew 28:18? And also that there are two classes of Christians, and that the 'Great Crowd' are not in heaven as every scripture mentioning them in Revelation states (Naos) as their location (the most 'Holy of Holies where God dwells). Don't answer here, but just have a think about it. You know Bible scholars do not back the Watch Tower on any of these points, and you (if you are honest) know that people have been excommunicated for just questioning or not believing these doctrines, (that have no scholarly back up) and are virtually unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, but, are still expected to be believed, regardless of their total lack of scholarly Biblical support. Regards, Central 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I will not address these particular issues with you, as they are not relevant to producing an unbiased set of articles here. Obviously, if non-Witness scholars accepted the Witnesses' viewpoint, they would be more inclined to convert or at least support us. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, You said: "I will not address these particular issues with you" then why they heck did you bring it up then? Remind me who said: "Claim it has no or scant Biblical proof, a wildly UNacademic position to take if I ever saw one." If you can't defend your faith, then please don't provoke a question that you cannot answer, and leads to your humiliation, and that you just claimed was "Bible based". Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't.... Nice defense of the indefensible there.Tommstein 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't see, can you, how BIASED your statements are? you attribute intent and motive behind decisions with which you disagree. These are NOT factual statements, but your interpretations of someone else's actions. You apply POV standards that are not relevant, even if you say they are. If this point stands, it MUST be presented as THE VIEWS OF THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE ORGANIZATION, not a factual statements without substantially ACCEPTED resources, in accordance with Wikipedia NPOV policy as I mentioned to User:Tommstein above. - CobaltBlueTony 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, If you claim a particular statement (that is relevant) is biased, then give a specific example, otherwise all you are doing is making unfounded accusations as a smoke screen. As for your comment on 'motives', they are irrelevant; it's the actions, not the motive for them that is the point. Removing someone's Human Rights as an individual is the point, not the motives for the Watch Tower doing this. Again, please learn to stick to the subject at hand and stop the endless sidetracking to distract readers. I will also insert the quote into the article from the Watch Tower's letter to all District and Circuit overseers as it's timely and relevant, especially with freedom of though issues: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persist in believing other doctrines, . . .then he is apostatizing."-1 September 1980, letter to all Circuit and District overseers. Regards. Central 11:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So tell me, which of the facts do you contend is false and something that 'opposers' just made up, the part about how the Watch Tower Society demands their rights before governments, or the part about how their members aren't afforded the same rights? Until you answer, you're just (still) flinging crap all over the walls and hoping something sticks somewhere, and not at an inconvenient place like the other dude that had his 'statement of fact' inserted into the article to his chagrin.Tommstein 08:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On a completely different note, I have a question for uberpenguin. I recall you said about 7 – 8 weeks ago, that you were going to write to the Watch Tower Society in regard to the debate here about who will be spared at Armageddon. Did you get a reply from them, and if yes, what did it specifically say in regard to the subject? Central 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the consensus was that even a direct response from the WBTS wouldn't change the positions of the other editors, so I have not written. I still can if the response could potentially make a difference in others' minds. -- uberpenguin 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't asking in regard to the debate's conclusion changing, I was just interested in how they would respond, and I'm surprised you didn't write anyway, for your own peace of mind. I know I would have if I had your doubts. Where better to go than "the channel of God" directly! Central 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in knowing how they would respond, you ought to write them yourself. If you write in a clear and non-argumentitive manner you have as much chance of getting a response as do I. As for my own peace of mind, I will probably get around to writing eventually as a matter of interest, though the answer wouldn't change any of my personal feelings, just my factual knowledge of current JW doctrine. -- uberpenguin 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User 'missionary' and the Watchtower’s misquotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unwieldy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility and NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objectivity? Scientific Realism and Wiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC box

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

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

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

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

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

Biased editing will ruin these articles

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

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

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

Proposal for compromise

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

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

Tony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other topics for inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

My spelling change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biographies of individual Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seasons in the Sun

Just found this description of the book:

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

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