| Revision as of 05:11, 27 December 2005 editJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,621 edits →Comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:39, 27 December 2005 edit undoDuffer1 (talk | contribs)1,637 edits →CommentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :::When you say out of context, do you mean in the sense of contrary to the meaning of the paragraph or article its contained in, or contrary to the general doctrine as understood by individual JWs? --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | :::When you say out of context, do you mean in the sense of contrary to the meaning of the paragraph or article its contained in, or contrary to the general doctrine as understood by individual JWs? --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Both. As Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort, not what Jehovah's understand as individuals, but what the WTS officially teaches; that is unacceptable. ] 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the public face Jehovah's Witnesses want to present as an advertising brochure.] 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | :You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the public face Jehovah's Witnesses want to present as an advertising brochure.] 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::The guideline is indeed appropriate, and is a far stretch from the humorous cry of victimization and misrepresentation posted by Duffer above ("God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"). Sometimes Witness literature avoids being too specific on things because they have learned their lesson on past specifics that never came to fruition, so there is often vagueness in their publications. If this vagueness is misinterpreted by people, both within and outside the religion, then they have brought it upon themselves. When dealing with such instances, it is most appropriate to provide as much information as is required to give the full picture of their beliefs, and the guideline above allows that to be done in the fairest way and avoids calling them straight out liars. That said, if something is no longer a current Witness belief, it should be clearly indicated that it was a once-held view rather than a current belief that contradicts another current belief.--] 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ::The guideline is indeed appropriate, and is a far stretch from the humorous cry of victimization and misrepresentation posted by Duffer above ("God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"). Sometimes Witness literature avoids being too specific on things because they have learned their lesson on past specifics that never came to fruition, so there is often vagueness in their publications. If this vagueness is misinterpreted by people, both within and outside the religion, then they have brought it upon themselves. When dealing with such instances, it is most appropriate to provide as much information as is required to give the full picture of their beliefs, and the guideline above allows that to be done in the fairest way and avoids calling them straight out liars. That said, if something is no longer a current Witness belief, it should be clearly indicated that it was a once-held view rather than a current belief that contradicts another current belief.--] 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::Your misunderstanding is the WTS's fault? Tough luck for them? Yes lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric. We'll call it The Republicans Misplaced Pages. But really, when dealing with ambiguous quotes, most of the time the meaning depends on the source of the quote. If you've read even one WT you'll notice that the articles are all themed. Off-theme points are written with as little info as possible in order to not detract from the main theme of an article/magazine. ] 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:39, 27 December 2005
Reconciling contradictory statements
The following guideline is proposed:
- Editors should not attempt to reconcile contradictory statements in JW publications, as this is original research. Simply state both statements, and allow the reader to determine how to reconcile them. For example:
- "Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. While The Watchtower has often stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive Armageddon, it has also indicated that ...."
Comments
This guideline is inappropriate. The article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not what non-witnesses may misread out of our publications. For the sake of accuracy, and to avoid hopelessly confusing readers, this guideline should not be followed. Duffer 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Duffer, an encyclopedia should include what others think of a topic, and this includes what others see when reading publications. The guideline does not inhibit accuracy, but in fact improves it, since readers see both quotes, not just the one JWs favour. Our job in writing an encyclopedia is not to omit facts to help the reader, but to explain all the facts in a readable way. The above guideline is a good attempt at doing this. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I favor accuracy. What happens time and again is that people unfamiliar with the nuances of Jehovah's Witness doctrine draw misguided conclusions about us (theocratic warfare.. armageddon survivors..), then post the most damning out-of-context quotes they can get their hands on, and launch propoganda that Michael Moore himself would be proud of. I can agree to this guideline if context and accuracy are maintained. If the quote is just there to misdirect people about what Jehovah's Witnesses really believe, then i'll likely object to it... WT '03 pg. 16: "God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends". Btw, how many articles do we need in-depth descriptions of our Disfellowshipping doctrine on? Duffer 09:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- When you say out of context, do you mean in the sense of contrary to the meaning of the paragraph or article its contained in, or contrary to the general doctrine as understood by individual JWs? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Both. As Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort, not what Jehovah's understand as individuals, but what the WTS officially teaches; that is unacceptable. Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the public face Jehovah's Witnesses want to present as an advertising brochure.Tommstein 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- The guideline is indeed appropriate, and is a far stretch from the humorous cry of victimization and misrepresentation posted by Duffer above ("God..loves...Satan..and they are.. friends"). Sometimes Witness literature avoids being too specific on things because they have learned their lesson on past specifics that never came to fruition, so there is often vagueness in their publications. If this vagueness is misinterpreted by people, both within and outside the religion, then they have brought it upon themselves. When dealing with such instances, it is most appropriate to provide as much information as is required to give the full picture of their beliefs, and the guideline above allows that to be done in the fairest way and avoids calling them straight out liars. That said, if something is no longer a current Witness belief, it should be clearly indicated that it was a once-held view rather than a current belief that contradicts another current belief.--Jeffro77 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your misunderstanding is the WTS's fault? Tough luck for them? Yes lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric. We'll call it The Republicans Misplaced Pages. But really, when dealing with ambiguous quotes, most of the time the meaning depends on the source of the quote. If you've read even one WT you'll notice that the articles are all themed. Off-theme points are written with as little info as possible in order to not detract from the main theme of an article/magazine. Duffer 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)