Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2005 - December 2005) - Please Do not edit!

A VfD

Hi there! You may have noted that one of your pages got nominated for deletion; one of your members requested an explanation on your talk page, so here's why. The page in question is a mere collection of links (specifically, a list of pages on a single side; WikiPedia shouldn't serve as an index for your own site), and as such is not an encyclopedic article.

I've taken a look at your project page, and would like to place two remarks... first, you currently have a lot more categories than actual articles - that's the wrong way around. And second, if your project is going to involve a lot of text from flyers and/or the Bible, I'd like to suggest that such material belongs in WikiSource rather than here.

Yours, Radiant! 08:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions. We are just getting started as a project (though individually some of us have a lot of Wikipedia experience) and we appreciate your input and any assitance you can give. Tom Haws 19:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Focus

I've been impressed with the projects' focus, just wanted to say great job. More articles are needed however, for the project to be seen as more credible and effective. May want to divide and conquer more. -Visorstuff 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A compliment! Thanks! Tom Haws 02:07, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
As a newcomer, I'd like to pose a question. Do we have set forth some guidelines of what to include in the Doctrines article as opposed to the Practice article? In general, I'd expect that in the former, we'd talk about beliefs, justifications, criticisms. In the latter, we'd talk about how things manifest themselves in practice. For instance, with the discussion of Blood, in the doctrine section, we can talk about what is the view of blood, the line of reasoning used to support the doctrine, brief mention of counter-arguements (no need to talk about blood cards here). In the practice section, list out how the doctrinal views manifest themselves in real-life decisions. Distinction from whole blood and blood fractions, "bloodless medicine," "blood cards," etc. If we establish this at a high level, this can really help to clean up both pages. Thoughts? Thanks. boche 01:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that's a good way to go ahead. --K. 01:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added a fairly comprehensive list of articles about and related to JW. Hopefully this will help those knowledgeable on the subject to improve them, as some are just stubs and others need major cleanups.

I also included articles that have sections on or references to JW. These types of articles are often overlooked, and so are outdated or sometimes plain wrong. Please have a look at them and try to improve the JW references.

BTW, if you don't like the hierarchy I've created, you're welcome to change it. ;) --K. 10:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppositional Views

I think this is a BAD idea. I can go into several reasons. Most prominent in that it polarizes the subject matter; and I question if neutrality can be maintained with such a page existing. In other words, for people who think "subject x" is only for "opposers views" and therefore should be on the "opposers page," we will fail to provide neutral content. And conversely, such a page simply opens up a can of worms to include every polemic about the JWs and catagorize it as somehow neutral and belonging in the WP. If people want to read opinion pieces, they can google. This should be an encyclopedia. Thoughts? boche 07:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't believe the page has survived as long as it had. I'm happy to put it up for VfD. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 14:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Let's do that, before it gets a life of it's own, and other pages start getting skewed. Thanks. boche 00:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

These views should be implemented into the "normal" pages. The german wikipedia made some effort to combine all info.--Mini 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes and comments

Moved from Project page.

Wasn't this article (Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society) deleted once before? At any rate, it is similar in content to "Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2" which was deleted after a VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2 for an archive of the vote. --DannyMuse 15:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have two thoughts: either the page should be adapted to be a "List of"-type article, or the information should be merged into Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced of Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses being a valid article anyway. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of where Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses could be a viable article is to focus on movements and efforts to counter JWs. So for instance, I think Catholic and Protestant responses have been different. And these differ from responses from Orthodox churches, as well as responses to missionaries in tribal cultures. What I think is plain wrong is to try moving factual items there that have been used for polemical purposes. Then it becomes essentially a tract on why JWs are bad and wrong. boche 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

We need a project plan

This WikiProject badly needs a plan to follow. Have a look at some of the other WikiProjects to see how focussed others are.

Right now the JW-related articles are a bit of a mess. Many articles are way too long, there is a lot of duplication, and some articles have very little information. Unfortunately there aren't any good examples on Wikipedia of articles on particular religions to model off. So let's get to work and make the JW-related articles the standard for other projects to model off! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed structure

This a proposal for an eventual structure to work towards:

About Jehovah's Witnesses

Literature

Jehovah's Witnesses-related

Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I think combining doctrines and practices is an interesting idea. I've had struggles trying to think, now should this be in doctrines or practices? There is certainly a fuzzy border between the two. However, it still can work well, as long as everyone views doctrine as specifying the belief especially how it is stated and justified in literature. And practices, where we see the doctrines in practice. Blood is a perfect example, where in doctrines, you can specify the view of blood, scriptural justification, etc. In practices you talk about blood cards, legal issues, etc. But, I'm not opposed to merging them. It'll be a long article however. If the "Opposition" page covers the holocaust, and legal battles, I think that that would justify its existence. Keeping legal instruments and organization separate might still be useful, since they serve two different purposes. The org structure is there for operational purposes, whereas the legal instruments are there for legal reasons. There is some overlap, but it seems possible to keep them separate. Again, the main issue with separation seems to be that it is good if it can help with article length, and also that it has a definable and distinctive purpose of its own that doesn't overlap significantly with something else. boche 09:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard to separate doctrines and practices, and I think there will forever be overlap if the articles are separate. I think the length can be short if the article just lists the doctrines/practices with a short summary, with a link to a sub article about it. Most JW teachings are quite in depth, because they differ so from what an outsider already knows, so a lot needs explaining. And if the sub article is too big, it can be split out if necessary.
With the organization/legal articles, the reason I propose combining is that originally, the legal article was there to cover the WTB&S, IBSA, etc. Now these have their own articles, I think there isn't enough info to warrant a separate article, but it fits in well with the discussion about the organisation of JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I like what you're after. Tom Haws and I tried to get this going a while back but couldn't muster up enough support and it was clearly too big a project for just the two of us. He then started this page and we got a few more involved, but interest waned. And of course, reaching a consensus is always a challenge. That being said, now may be the time. You might want to peruse this link for some additional ideas. Keep up the good work! --DannyMuse 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and I hope this time the project will get off the ground. It would be good to get some more editors onboard too. Please call all your mates! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is a good start. I would suggest we put a proposed outline on the main project page, and then we edit and debate it to death until we have the blue print, and then begin organizing the existing articles with this structure in mind. We'll need to go through several iterations, since for instance, when we merge practices and beliefs, we'll have one huge article if we don't break out dedicated sections for eschatology for instance. boche 06:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be a section on the the scandals of the watchtower somewhere. If not a page.--Greyfox 05:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Good outline for a plan, but I have a thought about some movement of information. A big thing I notice is how the main page about Jehovah's Witnesses is littered with a lot of historical related talk that isn't neccessarily topical. I see a lot of outdated beliefs referred to and talk about when this or that doctrinal understanding changed. Shouldn't that be in the article History of Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least kept to the history section of the page? The way it's woven throughout the main article, distracts from the point and it gives a very subtle but clear negative undertone (and wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased articles). I think we should consider cleaning up this stuff & doing it quickly.--Ando por Fe 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses template.

I think it would be a good idea to come up with a template for JWs that can guide a reader through the articles about JW. Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible Student movement and JW history

I've been looking up stuff on the Bible Student movement, which is quite interwined with the early history of the JWs.

I don't know how much it fits with this Project, but it has led to such stuff as Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups. Maybe the bible student stuff should also be covered by this project ? (At least the historical part) Flammifer 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, only that it expands an already big project. But hey, the more the merrier! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I've read the bible students pages in the past, and I'm unsure there is much to add on the JW end. And the JW articles, I'm sad to say, presents a big enough challenge. boche 06:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses: Bible Chronology

I mentioned on the primary JW discussion that there seems to be some fundamentals missing from the project. One of these is their version of Bible Chronology. Uberpenguin recommended that I start an article. I think it would add needed context for their belief. Because they view Bible Chronology as superior in every respect to Archeological Chronology, and because Bible Chronology is very subjective in many cases, their beliefs about the timings of certain events and how they arrive at these timings serves to define them as a distinctive religion.

For instance: Their preaching work is considered a fulfillment of prophecy because we are living in the time of the end, we are living in the time of the end because Jesus returned invisibly in (1874/1914) and began to rule in Heaven in (1878/1914), because Daniel 4 has a second fulfillment that extends to 1914 if you start from when Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 607 BC. How did they arrive at 607 BC? How did they arrive at 1914?

The same sort of thing can be done with their claim to divine authority being vested in the small group of Bible Students who were still active in 1918/1919. How did they arrive at 1918? Their claim that these are the last days is built on their Bible Chronology and this chronology is so adamantly upheld that to publicly refute or debate against it would lead to a Judicial Committee (a "trial" before three elders) and, without abject repentance, probable disfellowshipping. Though this may seem a POV statement, it is entirely accurate according to their publications.

The other area that is missing is a discussion of punishable offenses, such as homosexuality, viewing pornography, fornication, attending other churches, arguing against Church doctrine, active participation in the military, membership in the YMCA, and many more. These offenses could be put under some sort of "Behavior Denounced By Jehovah's Witnesses" heading in a perfectly NPOV manner. Each can have references attached to demonstrate the view maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. Just throwing the idea out for consideration.--Evident 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't mark edits like that as minor (just saying, not that I really care). As to a list of offenses, there's something like it in the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article (go to the "Disfellowshipping" section).Tommstein 04:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Usage conventions proposals

Use of "the Society"

Witnesses often use the term the Society when referring to the spiritual leadership rather than the legal structure. To make the articles clear to non-Witnesses, we need a convention on its use (if at all) and definition. Ideas? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad: I respectfully recommend not using the term except where it is defined as a JW term. The Society refers to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. or the products of its publishing efforts, not to the spiritual leadership. None of the Governing Body (the spiritual leadership) have any direct role in the affairs of the Society. It is argued that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is the spiritual leadership. However, in fact, no Jehovah's Witness alive (including members of the Governing Body) even knows who all the Faithful and Discreet Slave are. They know how many partake at the Memorial, but they don't know how many do so "legitimately."
The de facto spiritual leadership is the Governing Body. All authority among Jehovah's Witnesses ultimately rests with them.--Evident 04:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Your statement implies a solution. The expression "the Society" should only be used when referring to the actual, legal societies. It would be better if the term "the Society" itself were never used (unless such usage, as a reference to the corporations, is completely, blatantly clear from the immediate context, although even then I can't envision a usage of that form that wouldn't sound confusing), and terms like "the Watchtower Society" (when talking about the corporations generically) or "the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Wherever" when talking about a specific corporation. All talk about spiritual stuff should be referred to by some other appropriate name, like "the Governing Body," "the Faithful and Discreet Slave" (nevermind the fact that they don't actually do anything significant, it's all about the dozen guys on the Governing Body), or whatever is really intended.66.158.232.37 07:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The above post by IP address 66.158.232.37 was really by me, Tommstein. Wikipedia has been having a stroke for an hour or two, and somehow it actually posted that, but with just my IP address.Tommstein 07:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is the point of the above that "the Society" isn't used to refer to the GB? At least in Australia, "the Society" is the most common way to refer to the organisational leadership as a whole. Is it different elsewhere? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Konrad, It is often referred to that way by JWs. My understanding was this article is for JWs and non-JWs. JWs have been instructed that they should not refer to teachings as coming from the Society because, in truth, the Society only prints and distributes the teachings. The teachings are under the direct control of the Governing Body, who claim to represent the Faithful and Discreet Slave. So, reference to the Society would only be nebulously understood inside JWs and would not be clearly understood at all outside JWs.--Evident 12:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
No no, that wasn't my point at all. I was just stating how I think we should use the terms on Wikipedia. "The Society" probably means the same thing to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere, but their terminology is irrelevant unless your audience is only Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe I didn't explain what I was thinking very well though, so ask away if you wish for clarification.Tommstein 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The article has to be understandable by non-JWs. It seems pretty clear to me that "the Society" shouldn't be used in these articles to refer to the GB or FDS. I'll update the project page to reflect this.
Another problem I see is whether to use GB or FDS when refering to doctrinal changes. Officially it's the FDS, but since that includes the old anointed sister in your local cong, it doesn't make a lot of sense! Can we have a policy on what to use, or will it have to be a per situation thing? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was trying to say about "the Society." Did it come across differently? As to the new problem, I would recommend using "Governing Body" unless what is actually intended is "Faithful and Discreet Slave." Regardless of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about being led by the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (by what, osmosis?), that ain't how it actually works, it's really the Governing Body that runs the joint. The "Faithful and Discreet Slave" doesn't decide on beliefs or do anything else, regardless of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe; if they don't tow the line determined by the Governing Body, they will be kicked out just like anyone else. Since these articles aren't targeted at Jehovah's Witnesses (at least exclusively), we have to say exactly what we mean, and most of the time, that's the Governing Body.Tommstein 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
<--- I know what you mean, but the articles will need to acknowledge that the Witnesses *say* the FDS leads them, even if no-one can explain how. But you're right-- most of the time, the Governing Body will be the right term to use. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term society to me ment Brooklyn Bethel, GB, and Watchtower included and should be avoided because it would not be understandable to non jw's or some jw' for that matter. My opinion --Greyfox 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Specific Publications

I have started a discussion on inclusion of articles on specific publications. I do not want to repeat it all here, but I think it belongs to the project page as it would involve two articles (The Secret of Family Happiness and My Book of Bible Stories). I find it quite important as it has broad implications. Soukie 12:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you want articles for all those books etc. which come from a book publishing company? There are way too much to include.--Mini 12:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, in the discussion on Family Happiness I was arguing that having a separate article for every publication published by WTB&TS is not practical and that it misses the point. Soukie 14:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I can live either way. The thing we shouldn't do, however, is just have articles for some random books and not others. I think it should be an all-or-nothing proposition, regardless of which way it goes.Tommstein 06:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
While I don't think there should be random articles, there can be articles on specific publications without a need for one on every publication ever released. Publications that contain official teachings (Elder's book, Revelation, Insight, etc) should have their own articles, as well as those that used to (Studies in the Scriptures, etc), and those used in public ministry probably should too. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
To Time consuming to do a page per book besides the society usualy come out with two books each year most of the time to replace an older one thats out of date. I think it sould all be on one page with a small summary. If they want to know more they can get the book there all on ebay or at their local hall.--Greyfox 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The point isn't whether it is time-consuming or not; if the article can be encyclopedia and notable, it should be included. However, we want to concentrate on the most important articles first, so a simple stub will suffice for the short-term. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Belief restriction

"Statements about what JWs believe would naturally cite JW publications."

So no expert scholar of JW can be a source? Are these articles only reprints of JW publications? (SEWilco 07:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Certainly these articles should include expert scholars as source, but as far as I know, there are none. Certainly there are many ex-Witnesses who make claims, but none (even Raymond Franz) would be an "expert scholar". Do you know of any? Their works would be highly appreciated! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
James Penton, professor emeritus of history at the University of Lethbridge, xJW and author of two books on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. --PopeFauveXXIII 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the assertion as quoted above. I move to delete this sentence on the following bases:

- Watchtower Society publications, as self-published sources (and according to some, questionable - I was just reading last night about an article where it was asserted that silver rusts), are only supposed to be used as an authority about themselves, ie. the publisher, authors or books. Most Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the Watchtower Society, and the two terms are not synonymous. Therefore, there is no such thing as "JW publications" unless you count Johannes Wrobel's writings and others of that ilk.

Silver tarnishes by oxidation. This is the same in layman's terms to rust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

- Further to the previous point, they are only to be used if "the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed" and "is not unduly self-serving." Notability of the subject is established by reference to inclusion in third-party, reliable sources. Use of Watchtower Society publications should therefore only serve to enhance and support relevance as shown elsewhere. - Even if the Watchtower Society were to be considered as an authority on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion, outsiders are just as capable of commenting on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Eg, Holden, A. (2002) Jehovah's Witnesses portrait of a contemporary religious movement

Mandmelon (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Watchtower Society is the source of JW doctrine, therefore it is the most authorative source for JW beliefs. Whether it should be used as an authority for other things (such as the corrosiveness of metals) is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that it is also irrelevant whether what appears in Watchtower Society publications is correct, as it still represents what they believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m coming around to agreeing with you, although I have a different understanding of the terminology. The Watchtower Society is actually “the publisher” used by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although this talk page elsewhere asserts that “none of the Governing Body (the spiritual leadership) have any direct role in the affairs of the Society,” the article about the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses says that the Watchtower Society “refers to one or more of the legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses supervised by” the Governing Body. Neither of these comments are referenced.

Since 2001, JW publications have contained the statement that they are "published by Jehovah's Witnesses" rather than by the Watchtower Society, which has also introduced some ambiguity. All staff of the Watchtower Society are members of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is therefore no clear separation between them, and all aspects of JW regulations, including the approval of text in publications, are ultimately overseen by the Governing Body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that WTS literature couldn’t be used because it is self-published (the questionable thing doesn’t bother me so much) and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the same as the WTS.

Now I think that WTS literature can be used, even though it’s self-published, because it has previously be cited as work in the field (of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses) by other reliable sources. I still don’t think that this means it should be used in preference to other sources. Wikipedia’s suggested rules were framed without specifically having Jehovah's Witnesses in mind and only appear to mention "authority" to describe the qualified use of self-published and questionable books (not applicable here as shown in previous paragraph. Otherwise, the measure used is reliability. Neither affiliation with the subject nor religious authority appear to be a factors in determining reliability. It appears that your argument may assume that WTS are more authoritative because they have the quality of a primary source. However, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. (Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have addressed the subject of religious authority per se.)

JW publications should indeed not be used for saying that JW beliefs are correct, but they are the best source for saying what JW beliefs are.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It still remains that self-published sources should be used with caution, and that sources affiliated with the subject should be used in moderation.

I see your point about oxidation (silver reacts with sulphur, not oxygen, but oxidation doesn't only refer to the action of oxygen).

Though silver is tarnished by sulphur, the presence of oxygen is also required for the reaction to occur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jeffro. Just shows you can't believe everything you read. I withdraw my objection to the current wording on the basis that "natural" doesn't mean "necessary."

220.237.33.216 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me.

Mandmelon (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Go away for a few months, and look what happens! This project is starting to look positively positive. Maybe I better stay away longer.  :-) Good work, people. Tom Haws 06:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Konrad West has done most of it. Buy him a beer.Tommstein 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Mormon. How about a banana split? Tom Haws 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd take that over a beer any day of the week. Of course, I'd take a banana split over just about anything, and just about anything over a beer.Tommstein 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
<grin> Tom Haws 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for JW structure

It has been more than 3 weeks since the vote for/against the proposed structure began, and still only 6 out 19 of the project participants have voted. It would really be great to get everyone's vote, and preferably some outsiders too, so that we can get the project moving, using the new structure or not.

So the vote doesn't just go on forever, I would like to place a closing date for voting of 0:00 UTC, Friday, 25 November 2005. This is 7 days from now, leaving the vote open for one month, which should be sufficient for all participants to have their say.

I propose the following:

  • Votes timestamped 0:01 UTC and after on 25 November 2005 will not be accepted, and members not having cast a vote before then will be counted as abstaining.
  • Votes will be tallied after the close of voting, with abstain votes discarded, and a majority declared based on for vs. against.
  • If a majority votes for, the new structure will be adopted, and work shall begin to adapt the current articles to the new structure.
  • If a majority votes against, discussion will commence on an alternative structure.
  • If there is a tie, discussion will commence on whether to modify the proposed structure so as to be adopted, or whether to develop an alternative structure.

If no one objects, I will place these on the vote section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

link on main page

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nationsthis needs a link from the main article to it and from it back to main article.--Greyfox 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'm not sure what if any particular importance the story has to Jehovah's WItnesses, but I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article, and it seems to summarize nicely the story and how different religious groups react to it. I'm not certain what you are looking for from project members here, but the only thing I could suggest in more in-depth info on how different groups react to it, incorporate their perceived morals/lessons from the story, and any practices or rituals it has inspired. To Jehovah's Witnesses, however, a comparatively minor group in your proposed expansion, this story reflects to them God protecting His worshippers to sanctify His holy name (make holy his reputation) and to exalt Him over the Babylonian (false) gods. While the story is significant to Witnesses, its cultural impact in my perception is basically an example, particularly for youths, of obedient worshippers of God standing up to adversity or persecution regardless of the immediate consequences.
I'd invite others to respond with their thoughts. - CobaltBlueTony 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What CobaltBlueTony said. I can't really think of any other special application that Jehovah's Witnesses apply to the story.Tommstein 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is probably roughly the same interpretation as most other Christian and Jewish groups. I simply don't know all the interpretations of the story, so I figured I'd ask wherever a WikiProject existed to try to avoid leaving out someone's point of view. Thanks for your input. If you want to help further, you can help edit the page (see the to-do list) or support its nomination for collaboration of the week. --Tetraminoe 15:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_1&oldid=1137378105"