Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 3 January 2012

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Christianity: Witnesses B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Higher Education

When I was still serving as an elder in the late summer of 2006 in a congregation of JWs in SoCal we received a letter from the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (READ: the Governing Body) directing that ANYONE pursuing a higher education would be disqualified from privileges of service. I remember this quite distinctly because I had just received by BA in Education in June a few months before. In 2002, I had decided to pursue a degree under the Society's then current "it's a personal decision" policy and was quite shocked at their drastic policy change and also angry because (by implication) I was being made to feel bad because they changed their mind.

I did not make a copy of that letter. Has anyone? --DannyMuse (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you intending starting a section in this article? You could try asking the same question at the jehovahs-witness.net forum and see if someone has it. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This would require a reliable source rather than the anecdotal evidence above. There is nothing in the elders' manual (2010) or the publishers' manual (2009) supporting the claim above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole page should be deleted

This whole heading should be submitted for deletion because all of it comes from a slanted non -NPOV. It is filled with Inconsistencies and outright lies of those with a pointed agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss. What are the lies? What are the slants? If you can support your ideas with sources, a re-write could be possible. However, be prepared to defend your proposed changes with something other than OR or only JW sources. Vyselink (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I need help, How do I formally request the deletion of this page of lies? 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, go to AfD. However, I am going to warn you that you will probably not get far, as you haven't even talked about it here yet. Like I said, discuss. Give examples and sources that back your opinion. Vyselink (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be required to give sources when those who posted this fictitious material were not required to do so? Where did your NPOV disappear to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. And as far as I can see, there are currently 179 references to sources in this article. And I did not say you could NOT use JW sources, just be prepared to defend them if you use ONLY JW sources. Vyselink (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you had looked, you will see that there are an overwhelming number of references to official Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publications. Vyselink (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is extensively sourced, and is fair, balanced and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of lies and innuendo and presented from a lopsided negative point of view and should immediately be deleted without further discussion 72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the above, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and be accessed readily as www.watchtower.org this would be a direct link to exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, without the unnecessary biased commentary and negative use of colorful adjectives that seem to have found their way onto the Misplaced Pages version, aside from the blatant lies that are also found there.72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me one lie or innuendo. Just one. We can discuss it, hopefully come to a conclusion, and move on. Vyselink (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion to add the official site was a good one, so I put it under external links. Vyselink (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a corporation's official website has no bearing at all on whether an article should exist on Misplaced Pages. The anonymous editor is yet to present any example of content of this article that he imagines to be "inconsistencies", "outright lies", a "page of lies", "fictitious material", "lies and innuendo", "blatant lies".

What is absolutely certain is that no changes will happen if the editor will not indicate the specific content to which he refers. If/when he decides to elaborate, then potential issues will be addressed. It is considerably unlikely that such would warrant deletion of the entire page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of the official website doesn't magically make this article great, but it was a good idea. So I added it. Even if we are going to (hopefully) re-write some of this to have not so many JW sources for this page, an external link to the offical website makes sense. Vyselink (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem at all with the external link. However, the anonymous editor contends that the existence of the official site eliminates the need for this article altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, the IP user....... Vyselink (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false. "The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr." as stated This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false, Jehovah's Witnesses no more follow the teachings of Charles Russell or other former or even present presidents of the WTS than do the protestant religions follow the teachings of King Henry VIII.. This article is biased and short on facts and heavy on less than half truths, too many to simply start listing here, for lack of time, correct it or delete the page.98.92.242.93 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This just shows your complete ignorance of the history of your own religion. Russell founded the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and his teachings and writings were the basis for the entire religion. For example, in the March 1st, 1923 Watchtower (page 71) it explicitly states "He (Russell) did the Lord's work according to the Lord's way. If, then, Brother Russell did the work in the Lord's way, any other way of doing it is contrary to the Lord's Way and therefore could not be a faithful looking after the interests of the Lord's kingdom." If you read that, (which I doubt you will) you'll understand that that's saying "do it his way or you're wrong". Rutherford had so much power that he was able to completely ignore the legal will (as in the dying document) of Russell, and according to the Watchtower, June 15th, 1938, single handedly ELIMINATED the editorial committee of the Watchtower over an article he wanted published: "...but, by the Lord's grace, it was published, and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization". As for Knorr, all he had was complete control of the WTBTS. Yeah, totally not true. Read your own religious publications why don't you. Vyselink (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively new religion. Their set of beliefs didn't come out of thin air. The WTS has repeatedly related how Russell arrived at certain beliefs and then began expounding them in his books and Zions' Watch Tower magazine. Many were modified over time, but today's set of beliefs come, without question, from those Russell taught and Rutherford and Knorr later "adjusted". Your suggestion that the entire page, much of which is drawn directly from WTS publications, be deleted is ludicrous. BlackCab (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor needs to read Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, wherein it is clearly outlined that JWs' beliefs developed from the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. Of course, many of their teachings have changed since then, and that is not in dispute. The fact remains that their beliefs are based on Russell's teachings. It seems ludicrous that a JW would even dispute that.

Perhaps the anonymous editor should move this discussion on to the next point that he believes to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's some food for thought for you guys

(Matthew 25:41-46) 41 “Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on YOUR way from me, YOU who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. 42 For I became hungry, but YOU gave me nothing to eat, and I got thirsty, but YOU gave me nothing to drink. 43 I was a stranger, but YOU did not receive me hospitably; naked, but YOU did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but YOU did not look after me.’ 44 Then they also will answer with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them with the words, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did not do it to one of these least ones, YOU did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”98.92.242.93 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the discussion, and at best is some kind of weak religious 'threat'. Please present the next point in the article that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Change the first lie first, then we can more on to additional points of interest in the article, otherwise, I will find out how to formally request this pages deletion and request it. And neither is a threat, only a promise.( Here's a hint for you, Jehovah's Witnesses follow the teachings laid out in the bible, they follow Jesus Christ and serve him and the creator of the universe, Jehovah, who is the only God in existence. They don't believe in following any "man", but believe what is stated at (Psalm 146:3-4) 3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. 4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.98.92.242.93 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • jv chap. 5 p. 42 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) ***

FOLLOWING those words Charles Taze Russell proceeded to outline the developments that led to his publishing Millennial Dawn (later called Studies in the Scriptures) and Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence (now known as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom). This history is of special interest to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity.

Now please move on to the next statement that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was totally correct, you didn't read a thing. This is why your AfD is going to be summarily dismissed. Vyselink (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No AfD has been raised for this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh ik. But he will as soon as he learns how. He'll raise it just to "prove a point" about how the "anti-JW group" that we are a part of (by the way, why didn't you tell me I was in this group? are there benefits?) is providing false information, and when he does it'll be dismissed. Vyselink (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He's added an AfD template to the article, which is only the first part of the process. If/when he completes the process, I think it will be fairly short-lived.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's submitted for deletion, so make the page more realistic and closer to true, of I will not give up on this point98.92.242.93 (talk) 12:30 pm, Today (UTC+10)

However, if he wishes to proceed with the AfD nomination, he'll need to register a username or provide a very convincing argument at Talk. The AfD template states: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another example of not reading the information available. As for you, IP user, you "not giving up on this point" is irrelevant, because you have yet to make one. We have given you documented (by your own religion no less, not even secondary) sources that prove that the only point that you have argued (which, to refresh your memory, is that "This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false. "The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.") is wrong. Vyselink (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really? I'm trying to be reasonable, the three of you are trying to be obstinate, all I'm asking is for this slanted page full of half truths and innuendo to be made less biased, you guys are the ones who wish to keep it as a page that simply attacks witnesses. Do you really think that I wouldn't like a page on Misplaced Pages that honestly explained Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs? Seriously? I just want the page to be true, not slanted to such a state that it is unrealistic. And Jeffro 77, I've been a baptized witness for over 2 decades, I know more about what Witnesses believe than you seem to think. 98.92.242.93 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that several editors, including myself, have previously recommended that you create a user account, I don't see the prospect as especially threatening. So far, the only specific claim you've made about the article is shown to be false from JW publications. Please present the next statement in the article that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.

I don't really care how long you've been baptised, and 'time baptised' doesn't necessarily equal a specific amount of knowledge anyway. However, you have demonstrated that your knowledge of your religion might not be as good as you might like to think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can create an account, please do so, it would make everything SOOOO much easier. As for this particular debate, the whole thing started with me ASKING (practically BEGGING) you to give me just one thing that was a "lie" or "false". Finally, just now, you gave the first sentence. That's a start. But, when you were given documented sources from the religion you claim you have been in for over two decades, that state, enequivocally, that your assumption is wrong, instead of discussing it, or challenging it with other sources, all you continue to say is that it's a lie. Misplaced Pages is not interested in YOUR version of the truth. Back up your claims with SOURCES. Do you have a new book from the WTBTS that says "Actually, in fact, our religion is not based on the teachings of CTR"? If so, then please provide it, as I would love to read it. Vyselink (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not really clear what the anonymous editor expects of other editors. Are we supposed to guess which parts of the article he imagines to be biased??--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, since you "know" Jehovah's Witnesses so well, you likely already know what parts are biased, and since blackcab, claims to have been an elder and to have given "thousands" of talks on the TMS(which I don't believe after comments he's made showing a lack of comprehension on certain things any witness would know) he should also know, and the only one I have doubts about is Vyselink, because I don't know how much he ever understood as a child and how much he listened when his parents took him to meetings or during home and personal bible study periods to which he would have become exposed, so he may not have as much of an understanding as you two seem to indicate you do.. Anyway correct the page, I am willing to help, but at this point you don't seem to genuinely wish to correct it, therefore I don't trust that you will make a real effort, thus the request for deletion98.92.242.93 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Other editors do not need to speculate about what you might be unhappy with, based on your judgements of those other editors. You are the one disputing article content. It is your responsibility to raise the specific issues at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern IP user, but believe me, I don't argue for/against anything that I don't have a good knowledge in. As for THIS discussion, I am still waiting for an answer to my plea: what is wrong with this article? You've given one point, which has been replied to with documented source evidence. What is your counter reply? (That's what's known as a "dicussion".) Vyselink (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So far, the anonymous editor hasn't discussed anything. Sources have been presented for the single point he has raised, and the editor's response is basically I just don't like it. You must do one of the following for improvement of the article to proceed:

• If you have not accepted the responses to the point you have raised, based on the JW sources that have been provided, present your specific counter-arguments (from reliable sources) to the explicit statements from JW literature that indicate JW beliefs to be based on the teachings of C. T. Russell.
• If you have accepted the responses to the point you have raised, present what you believe to be the next specific problem with the article.

If you refuse to do either of these things, it is unlikely the article will be changed. Of course, there is also the principle of WP:BRD, wherein you may make an edit first, and then discuss. However, if you edit against concensus, your changes will not be retained. Similarly, if you make disputed changes, and refuse to discuss, your changes will be reverted, and if you continue, your actions will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, from the looks of it, this AfD nomination was made in bad faith, just because he doesn't like it. It's unlikely that the deletion discussion would continue (even if it did, it would soon be closed as speedy or snow keep), so is it alright to remove the template now or not yet? 112.208.111.55 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of giving him 24 hours or so to make his case, but I won't strenuously object if there is consensus to remove it sooner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor appears to have comprehension problems. He criticises me for having claimed on my user page that I was an elder and that I had given thousands of talks on the theocratic ministry school. In fact my user page contains no such claims. I was a ministerial servant and over my two decades of membership gave hundreds of talks. BlackCab (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

Should there be a section on this? It seems at variance with other literalist interpretations. Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Maybe, but see Eschatology section of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I had to agree with the anonymous user above, this page seems to be highly slighted against witnesses, so I went ahead and completed the deletion request for the page for the anonymous user, since they weren't able to do so themselves. The page certainly does not adhere toWP:NPOV and could use an objective edit from non-biased editors, unfortunately, I don't have the time or experience to commit to such a project myself.Spudpicker 01 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for completing this for me, though I see someone undid the nomination for deletion, I undid it and if someone reverts it again, I will find out how to report them and do so72.152.68.179 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would love to know how you think this article is slighted, seeing as how you are a newly registered user with 0 edits other than agreeing with the anonymous IP users deletion request? Also, if you feel it is slanted, please give us examples. The anonymous IP user gave us one example of a sentence he thought was slanted against JW's, and when given documented source evidence, didn't counter-argue. Vyselink (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So that this information will be at your fingertips

See here is the problem,you guys ask that I point out what is wrong with the page, yet as I attempt to do so you disruptively revert the page EVEN as I attempt to do as you ask, this is why this page and all pages linked to it need to be deleted72.152.68.179 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you guys don't wish that the page be correct, you wish only that the page bash Jehovah's Witnesses. I go editing it as you requested, so you protect the page from edits like the unreasonable people you have shown yourselves to be72.152.68.179 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

'"I point out what is wrong with the page..." Except that you didn't. You have charged through the article, removing sourced statements without discussion. Everyone is aware of the NPOV policy, so there is no benefit in pasting it here. Learn to collaborate. Even communicating with you is difficult, because you continue to edit from a range of IP addresses. BlackCab (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish to thank you, IP user, for letting me know of policies to which I have been adhering to for about 4 years now. You're obvious mastery of WP guidelines never fails to amaze me. However, simply quoting the policies and not giving specific examples as to what VIOLATES those policies is not "pointing out what is wrong with the page". Also, removing sourced statements without discussion is not editing, it is removing what you don't like. Vyselink (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ray Franz is the very definition of a WP:Fringe source, and you guys seem to allow yourselves to remove sources all the time that you yourselves determine to be WP:fringe without any evidence at all other than your own meandering opinion, By the way, I got an user id like I promised. I hope it makes you happy, personally it seems somewhat unnecessary to me. I tried to edit the page as Jeffro 77 suggested, only to have you guys revert the edits before I could complete them to show you what was objectionable material. It seems your offer to let me do that wasn't made in good faith, then you got one of your friend to protect the page to keep me from finishing, which seems to be a little childish from my point of view.Willietell (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, may I commend you on your excellent knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines. If I may though, I recommend you check out Misplaced Pages:Fringe Reliable Sources. You can see that Ray Franz meets the criteria of a reliable source. His book, Crisis of Conscience (excellent read by the way, you should try it sometime), which I would guess is one of the most heavily referenced, meets the criteria of "material from reliable non-academic sources". It also meets (if you still insist on calling it fringe) "a fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Both historian James Penton and sociologist Andrew Holden have praised this book.

And while I may be wrong, I don't recall Jeffro77 asking you to edit this page. I recall both him and myself asking you for what you believed were "lies", you giving us one, and then when we gave you our documented, sourced evidence and (this next part is going to be all caps because to be honest I don't know if you've even paid attention so far) ALL OF THAT DOCUMENTED, SOURCED EVIDENCE COMES FROM YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. It is not taken out of context. It is not two words of quotes followed by ten words of my interpretation of the rest of the source. It is quoted, verbatim.

As for "one of my friends" to protect the page, while I can't speak for Jeffro or BlackCab, I had never heard of Kww until you mentioned it just now, and so I went back and looked to see who had put the semi-protection tag on.

And actually yes I'm quite happy that you got a user ID. It just makes things so much simpler. Vyselink (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem simpler from my end, now I've had to go setting up a talk page and a page telling about myself and things I just have little interest in, but if it makes you guys happier, by the way, the person that finished off the deletion request was a friend of mine, I told him not to bother, but he insisted on doing it anyway after reading the page for a little bit, so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks you guys are driven by bias, as he referred to the page as a bunch of drivel. Also, I will forgo reading Ray Franz's propaganda of bitterness, since I have lived in the same area as he for the last 25 years, I could have spoken to him personally any time I chose, like towards the end of his life when he made it clear that he wished for his wife to be re-instated into the organization. I can only assume that his own apostasy left him in a position where felt much like Judas IscariotWillietell (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And this is why you get nowhere. Your personal dislike for Ray Franz is irrelevant. You appear to be simply incapable of comprehending the simple fact that if you were to argue your opinion with sources, make a good faith attempt to truly change the article for the better, you would probably have had some of this re-written by now. As for your friend, who cares? He has yet to say a word other than creating an account specifically to try and get this page deleted. I'm afraid that your religious beliefs have blinded you to the simple decorum that is needed when two people are in disagreement. I will ask again, provide evidence in the form of documented, sourced references. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting the time that you could be using to promote your religion. Becuase lets be perfectly honest here. Anyone who has absolutely no opinion one way or the other about JW's is going to read what you have been saying so far and assume that all JW's must be as unwilling to have a decent, respectable conversation as you are. Which is not at all true. I've known many JW's, and the vast majority are tremendous people. However, you are giving your religion a bad name because of the fact that you refuse to discuss. You are acting like a petulant child who can't get his way no matter how much he screams and cries that "it's not fair!" Have some respect. If not for your own image, than at least for the image of your religion. Vyselink (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To refresh your memory

If you refuse to do either of these things, it is unlikely the article will be changed. Of course, there is also the principle of WP:BRD, wherein you may make an edit first, and then discuss. However, if you edit against concensus, your changes will not be retained. Similarly, if you make disputed changes, and refuse to discuss, your changes will be reverted, and if you continue, your actions will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs)

OK. And? WP:BRD states "

1.BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)

2.Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.

3.Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise."

You have done the first two of those (without any even attempt at a discussion beforehand I might add). Now do number three. DISCUSS.

Oh, and please don't forget to sign your posts. I thought Jeffro had posted that for a second. Vyselink (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to remember, but like I have said, I'm kinda new at this.Willietell (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Still, it tells you I added it, so I dont understand the confusionWillietell (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I never realised it was so easy to make friends! All I need to do is... well... nothing. Anyone who reverts some biased JW editor is apparently instantly my friend by default.

There is no obligation for editors to create their own User page, or even their own User Talk page. Any editor can initially create another editor's User Talk page when the need arises. That therefore did not make anything less simple for you.

If you continue to behave in the same way as you have behaved anonymously, you will be reported. Hopefully you will now begin to contribute meaningfully, by discussing rather than simply objecting or hacking out parts of the article mid-sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit made to the introduction

I have edited the introduction to this page to provide more balance and less WP:NPOV WP:OR

If you would care to discuss this edit, please feel free to do so HERE.Willietell (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit just doesn't work, and here's why.

• The introductory sentence attempts to describe the religion, not the subject of the article.
• The statement that they base their beliefs solely on the principles found in the Holy Bible is entirely a matter of opinion, easily contested and not substantiated.
• The statement that they view the first-century Christian congregation as model for the current day organizational structure of their Christian congregations throughout the world is true in that that's their opinion (absurd as it is ... first century Christians had no corporation, board of directors, branch officers, elaborate hierarachical structure and detailed handbook of disciplinary procedures) but probably not so important that it needs to be in the intro.
• It also inexplicably removes the statement -- important for casual readers -- of how their quite distinct set of beliefs developed.

I have reverted your edit. Please discuss further changes here. BlackCab (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your claim here that I am making an attempt at deception re sources, let me elaborate: an organisation's claim about itself clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages standards of reliability. If Donald Trump was to announce on his website that he was the greatest businessman in American history, it would clearly not be acceptable as a source for such a statement of fact in an encyclopedia. Likewise, when the Watch Tower Society declares in the Kingdom Ministry that its beliefs are based solely on the principles found in the Holy Bible, that is not acceptable. No author of any academic study of the religion has made such a claim. All make plain that its doctrines have evolved from the millenarian teachings of Charles Taze Russell, with significant changes introduced by his successor, Joseph Rutherford.

There is no biblical support, for example, that at Armageddon God will kill everyone in the world except JWs, no biblical support for the claim that in 1918 Jesus chose the Watch Tower Society as his one true organization on earth; no theologians have supported the WTS's peculiar view that God forbids the practice of medical blood transfusions of human blood; and there is no biblical support for the practise of shunning those who choose to formally resign from that religion because they see through the deception. Please understand that Misplaced Pages articles depend on verifiable facts drawn from third-party sources. BlackCab (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an attack page/Neutrality is disputed

I have posted a message in talk at Misplaced Pages Project: Jehovah's Witnesses requesting that anyone wishing to address what I feel is blatantly an attack page to make it adhere to WP:NPOV WP:attack and WP:COAT discuss proposed changes here: Willietell (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is the appropriate place to discuss changes to this article. You are very clearly not going to succeed in having this page deleted, and your claim that it is an attack page is quite patently stupid. Tagging it as such attracted the immediate attention of an admin, who deleted the tag as inappropriate. You therefore need to work to improve the page if you think it has errors or misrepresentations.

You have tagged the page as being biased and also being a coatrack article, yet you have not added a word of explanation or elaboration here so your views can be discussed. Can you please therefore list and discuss the specific points you think need to be addressed. Only then can a sensible solution be reached. BlackCab (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with BlackCab. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Willietell (previously editing as various anonymous IPs) has been requested repeatedly to indicate what he believes to be specific problems with the article, and he has repeatedly refused to do so. He has even stated outright that he just expects people to know which parts of the article he thinks is biased.

He has said that this section is for discussion of those points, so he is now expected to raise those points that he believes need to be addressed. If he continues to refuse to do so, he should be reported for disruptive behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems really familiar........Vyselink (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns

Sorry guys, but my schedule is kind of tight right now and I will not have much Wiki time until the middle of next week, then I will start to address some of these issues, which are so numerous that they will take more than one sitting.Willietell (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Incredible. BlackCab (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As the only objecting editor has indicated he has no immediate intention of stating any specific objections, I have removed the tags for the time being. If/when any actual concerns are raised, the relevant template(s) can be applied to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.

This statement violates WP:npov and misrepresents the cited source . It is a false statement, as the Witnesses beliefs are no more based on the teachings of Charles Russell than the Protestants beliefs are based on the teaching of King Henry VIII. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on their understanding of the bible, as is duly noted at their official web site, so accurate information is available, therefore it should and MUST be used. To do otherwise calls into question the neutrality of the page.

Since 1976 all doctrinal decisions have been made by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders at the religion's Brooklyn headquarters.

This statement is not properly sourced material and constitutes WP:OR. Which calls into question WP:NPOV.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the present age of human existence is about to be terminated with the direct intervention of God, who will use Jesus Christ to fully establish his heavenly government over earth, destroying existing human governments and non-Witnesses,

This statement misrepresents the cited source material , and does so in such a way as to make a false statement, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that human existence is about to be terminated, but exactly the opposite, that man will live forever on the earth. This statement therefore violates WP:NPOV as well as misrepresenting the source material.

All members of the religion are expected to take an active part in preaching.

This statement is unsourced and therefore constitutes original research. It is, while somewhat accurate, nevertheless expressed in a negative way, and leaves out important aspects surrounding what exactly is meant by the word expected. A more truthful statement would say that , "Witnesses are encouraged to engage in the preaching work to the extent that their individual circumstances allow" therefore, this statement is a WP:COAT because it disguises its purpose, which is presenting Jehovah's Witnesses and their support of the preaching work in a negative light, which also violates WP:NPOV.

(the approximately 10,800 "anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses), which Witnesses believe is used by Christ as a channel for God's progressive revelations and to direct Christians on biblical matters.

This statement is misleading and misrepresents the source material, as Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that all of those professing to be "anointed" are used to "channel...progressive revelations" and "to direct Christians in biblical matters", there are in fact, those who profess to be "anointed" who serve in christian congregations only as publishers of the good news of God's Kingdom along with their brothers and sisters who do not profess to be "anointed" and have little to do with organizational matters. This statement therefore is not only incorrect, unrepresentative of the source material, but also disguises it's purpose, which is to make a misleading and disparaging remark about Jehovah's Witnesses, thus violating not only WP:NPOV but WP:COAT as well.

Governing Body seeks neither advice nor approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at the Brooklyn headquarters.

This statement misrepresents cited source material while using source material that is WP:Fringe and biased as it comes from a disfellowshiped ex-member with questionable motives, source material from such individuals violate WP:NPOV as the author has an obvious conflict of interest. The statement is also presented in a disparaging way, Violating WP:attack and WP:NPOV

Watch Tower Society publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose to some headquarters staff.

Use of the word "claim" violates WP:NPOV and creates an unnecessarily negative tone, the extension to the sentence "to some headquarters staff" is misleading and misrepresents the source, serving as a disparaging remark and making the entire sentence a WP:COAT.

The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings

This statement is misleading, as the articles found in "The Watchtower" under the heading "Questions from Readers" clearly show that concerns of those who have questions regarding doctrinal matters are regularly addressed and therefore this statement, while sourced, is clearly false, therefore in the interests of adhering to WP:NPOV a rebuttal statement should be included to balance the viewpoint expressed.

Members who promote privately-developed teachings contrary to those of the Governing Body may be expelled and shunned.

Statement misrepresents source , however the statement is rooted in truth, but presented in a one-sided manner, thus making is fail to adhere to WP:NPOV and teetering on the verge of violating WP:COAT. A rebuttal giving Jehovah's Witnesses position on why members may be disfellowshiped would be needed to adhere to WP:NPOV, the information was available in source, however it was not presented, making the sentence biased and fail to adhere to WP:NPOV and teeter on the edge of becoming a WP:COAT

This completes the first section, as this is long article, it cannot reasonably be addressed in its entirety in one sitting, so other elements of concern will be addressed in a progressive manner.Willietell (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell to indicate 'coatrack' concerns

Dito.Willietell (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles