Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Faithful and discreet slave

I find no reason that the topic about the Faithful and discreet slave should have its own article, since the information in that article is rather limited and it is about one single teaching that really could be discussed together with all the other docrines in the bigger article. What the faithful slave is and how it is important for the doctrine can fully be explained in that article. I suggest the merging of those articles. Summer Song (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The article has much more detail on the doctrine and its development than can be accommodated in the Beliefs and practices article. LTSally (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I take notice of your comment, but there was in fact more than one article before that discussed various doctrines that now has been merged. Since this article is rather short and its information could be dealt with that way, why shoudn't we merge? At least, that is my personal view. Summer Song (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MERGE discusses the rationale for merging an article and lists four reasons why an article should be merged within another. None of those apply to Faithful and discreet slave. This subject rates just one sentence within Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you added the content of the FDS article, including the current WT teaching, its origin and criticism, it would instantly qualify as an article to be split. LTSally (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What about adapting the article to merge Faithful and discreet slave with Parable of the wise steward, which could also do with expansion with any other mainstream interpretations that may exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The connection is obvious, but I don't see it as an easy fit. The parable article contains information of general interest on a Bible subject; the "faithful and discreet slave class" is a teaching unique to Jehovah's Witnesses that effectively transforms ~~a parable~~ one figure of a parable into an organizational statum. Because the FDS article has significantly more information, it's also likely to swamp the Bible article. The articles can certainly cross-link, but I don't like the idea of a merge. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in its current form, it would certainly swamp the parable article. However, the current form does seem to give undue weight to a belief of a minor religion, with not a great deal of third party sources. The existing parable article should also be expanded to include other interpretations that may exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A better solution would be to rename the FDS article as Faithful and discreet slave class and allow it to remain focused on the JW doctrine. That teaching, after all, is one of the central JW teachings about the basis of its authority and the claims of the channel of communication between God and mankind. A link would remain to the Parable of the wise steward article. LTSally (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose.
Anyway, aside from New World, does any other translation of Matt 24:45 read "faithful and discreet slave"?
If not (I believe not), there is no reason to append "class" to the name to distinguish this from a teaching wholly unrelated to Jehovah's Witnesses. Incidentally, why not move this talk section to that article?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete and Innacurate Article Provokes Vandalism

A recent act of vandalism on this article identified the reason why this article experiences vandalism: "This article is incorrect in many areas and does not represent the history or beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses."

As much effort as was put into hunting down information that was obsolete before Wikipedia even existed, to contradict current information about the subject of this article - and to maintain the edit war required to keep it there - if a small fraction of this effort were put instead into providing current information, there would not be this edit war between obsoletionists and members of the public who have little concept how to edit Wikipedia, but who know enough about the subject to recognize misinformation when they see it. Downstrike (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles associated with Jehovah's Witnesses have always attracted vandalism. The statement you removed was probably outdated, though it was certainly revealing of the attitudes of Watch Tower Society of just a few decades ago. But "oudated" statements are certainly not the sole reason why idiots feel the need to mark their territory on this website. It is a common occurrence for users, both anonymous and account holders, to remove indisputable facts about Witnesses from the article simply because they find them uncomfortable. LTSally (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What I replaced was most likely a historical fact, and may have a proper place in a historical section. Downstrike (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't attempt to justify editors' vandalism of the article with claims that the article is inaccurate. What some editors claim is inaccurate is often simply objectionable to them because they feel it puts their religion in a bad light. If an editor believes information is untrue, they should discuss the specific points.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was justifying anything? The "editing" that brought this particular obsolete information to our attention was very sloppy. There appeared to be odd bits of punctuation and reference tag left dangling afterward.

I'm trying to encourage the inclusion of up-to-date information, and the replacement of obsolete information in the article. If we don't want people doing such sloppy edits, we should have correct information in the first place.

However, since you bring up the subject of justification, when we add or restore information, the burden of evidence for the information we add or restore is on us. On the other hand, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence :

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

"Puts their religion in a bad light" seems to mean the same thing as "might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations", and information based upon sources that were obsolete before Wikipedia even existed seems to be "poorly sourced material". Downstrike (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Without indicating exactly what was supposedly "obsolete before Wikipedia even existed", this discussion is meaningless. Obsolete information is neither a cause nor a justification for vandalism; the two things are entirely independent. Perhaps someone would care to indicate what they consider "obsolete" or "innacurate [sic]".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for destructive editing. Why do you keep bringing that up? However, there is no need to provoke it, either.

Meanwhile, obsolete information doesn't provoke anything. However, inaccurate information that damages the reputation of people or organizations does.

Beginning with: 20:59, March 29, 2010 76.105.149.144 (talk) (87,201 bytes) (→Evangelism) (undo) (Tag: references removed) until now, most if not all editing done in the Evangelism section of this article have involved the deletion, restoration, replacement, supplementing, or tweaking of statements about pioneering, that were originally partly sourced from a 1955 Watchtower and 1973 Our Kingdom Ministry, and partly unsourced. Ironically, only the unsourced information, (the explanation that pioneering means 70 hours of evangelizing), turned out to be correct when checked against reasonably current sources.

Interspersed between destructive editing from 76.105.149.144 and my attempts to replace the obsolete information, at least 2 established editors restored obsolete information that has been criticized as a guilt trip.

BTW, thank you for your efforts to improve it! Downstrike (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Theocratic warfare

Moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Theocratic warfare, along with subsections.

Tolerating evasiveness is not distinct

Moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Tolerating evasiveness is not distinct

Coatrack

Moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Coatrack

See here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of scriptures

I am new to wiki,but while I am reading this article I feel the article does not contain information for a research.It just states there beliefs rather than why? Also in the quality scale rated as B were its defined as "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher".

So my point is if a theology student want to make a serious understanding of their beliefs won't it be good to just mention the scriptures which Jehovah's witnesses use to make their stand? For example it is given that they base there beliefs on bible;So if they believe Jehovah is their God to worship,then won't it be good to add an informative statement like "They use these scriptures( just include the scripture location) to endorse or interpret this belief". won't it be more informative to the reader?

Or Am I wrong? Is there any rule in wiki that not to mention any scriptures? I suggest to include some scriptures they use to interpret their beliefs to make the article informative..jeho (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of scriptural references already exist in the article to make clear where some of those beliefs are drawn from. I don't see any statements of belief that appear to need scriptures ... but if you disagree, please indicate which beliefs you refer to. BlackCab (talk)

User:Jehonathan, it is sometimes appropriate to explain that a particular JW believe is based on a particular scripture, particularly if there is a specific phrase in a scripture being discussed. However, scriptures should not simply be stated in the fashion employed in The Watchtower, as if to imply that a particular scripture can be interpreted only the JW way or that applying a particular scripture a certain way is uncontested. Please see WP:JW#Use of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do accept with your point that not to mention scriptures in brackets as in watchtower.But I have added a summary at last,which is informative and the user could easily get an idea what they believe and the scriptures they use to interpret.It is vital because many beliefs mentioned in the summary are not included inside the article.And a general reader won't see scriptures but for a serious reader it is surely helpful.It does not violate any wiki policies because it is informative.regards..jeho (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the entire table the way you have done could be a copyright violation. Some of the wording may need to be cleaned up for a more encyclopedic style and to reduce the jargonish feel. Also not entirely convinced that a long table containing points on many different subjects that are not clearly delineated is entirely helpful as a summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the article should not attempt to teach (that is convince) readers that JW beliefs are true (or false) by using the Bible as an 'appeal to authority', as is clearly the purpose in the document the table is lifted from.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments,may be we need to change some words to make it an encyclopedic style.I don't think it have a copyright problem once we change some vocabulary,further most of those scriptures are also present in many of their books and known to the adherents of JW. The article does not teach or convince because in header it says "Scriptures on which their interpretation is based". Its just gives a clear idea of most of their belief's and if we try to explain each one in separate headings it would be too big. So this table is easy to understand and helps the common readers to have a basic understanding of most teachings, whereas an advanced reader could have a detailed view on their interpretations..regards..jeho (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The table isn't exactly brief. Some adaptation of this could work, possibly broken into smaller subject-based tables in relevant subsections. I'll think about possible alternative presentation. Assessing its suitability will also require input from other editors, and maybe a third opinion from an uninvolved party.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of the content of the table repeats material already in the body of the article. Scriptural citations are unnecessary for many statements of belief and pointless in others. How do Galatians 3:13 and Acts 5:30 support a view that Jesus died on a stake when those scriptures refer to a tree? How does Matthew 15:3 support the view that the Bible is more reliable than tradition? How does Psalms 72:1-4 support a view that the "Kingdom will bring ideal living conditions to earth"? I'm not here to debate the truth or logic of those statements, but taking up such a huge section of the article with spurious and tenuous citations is excessive. Brief summaries of their core beliefs, as already present in the article, are sufficient. BlackCab (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary to include everything that is in the table (which is verbatim from a JW webpage). It might be suitable to summarise key beliefs with the more commonly used scriptures for the most significant doctrinal views in some of the relevant sections; also, for points that are not distinctive of JWs, it is almost certainly unnecessary to provide specific scriptures. I'm assuming the specific questions above are rhetorical. The table in its current format seems to seek to 'prove' that JWs base their beliefs on the Bible, and that should not be the intent of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About keeping scriptures:It is vital to include scriptures because most people see JW with bible and arguing with people.And hence people are curious to know what scriptures they use and (may be they could use them for debate). As I mentioned the topic is about the beliefs of JW's and not some other religion .Hence,As it is mentioned they reject many usual Christianity teaching and base on bible,it would useful atleast to give info regarding the scriptures they use to make their beliefs..jeho (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is "vital" to include scriptures, and certainly not for all of the entries in the table. (On what do you base your ideas about "most people"?) Many of the entries are typical Christian beliefs, and do not require special elaboration from scripture in this article. It is POV to say that JWs "reject many usual Christianity teaching and base on bible", because other Christian religions also have their own interpretations of the Bible consistent with their own beliefs. I'm not aware that articles about other religions have a similar table, though such a tabulation of selected scriptural interpretations would be equally possible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So you say some beliefs are common to other Christians so u are going to trim it right?Then please mention at the heading I given below about which are the beliefs u feel common and then trim?.Don't compare other religion because JW are always put in debate. Other religion theologists are in debate about there own beliefs itself.But you may note that although other religious articles don't use much scriptures they have explained the evolution of their traditional theology.So they may can't make a table with their general beliefs with scriptures,but they may be able to make a table with the time-line of traditional doctrine evolution.But as JW's not believe in tradition more points are to be included from scriptures as in the table.Because of this only JW even though they form a low population their articles are always highly important.Why cant people here add some criticisms to other religions sex abuse cases or detestable things they do in a detailed way or have some genuine interest in criticisms of other religions.Because people are uncomfortable here with JW.Be positive..jeho (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About link to JW home page:I agree with the argument that the reference given will make people to visit to JW website.So I had removed the link,And added a reference to that magazine name(Who are JW?What they beleive?) citing the page..jeho (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone complained that "the reference given will make people to visit to JW website", though if you had that impression yourself, then you're probably right.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember there was an argument tasting like that so only I mentioned..jeho (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About breaking the table:Most readers don't want to read all the history and content given above,rather they are satisfied by have an understanding about their beliefs line by line as given in summary.If we remove some points because it is mentioned earlier or split it would be inconvenient to the reader as there would be no option for a quick view about all their beliefs in an easyway...jeho (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat that it is convenient to have a concise summary of beliefs, but disagree that it's necessary to include the entire list merely because that was what exists on the JW website it's copied from (verbatim). I see no reason to include entries that are not distinctive of JWs. I will trim and probably redistribute the list when I have more time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with this particular table from the JW source is that it only includes scriptures about topics they want to address, rather than a neutral selection of distinctive beliefs. Additionally, readers wanting something concise probably aren't going to look up the cited scriptures, and just stating a scripture reference can imply support where no real explicit support exists; e.g. the scriptures about blood say absolutely nothing about 'taking blood into the veins', etc, yet they are offered as 'support'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

what things u going to trim plz notify in the heading I given just below with the reasons? If it is same as other all mainstream Christians I am ok .U said distinctive,I feel almost all are distinctive and required.If u find some beleifs are same please mention there and then change after talks are over.Also include details about your finding in neutral selection. About blood we shall change the heading to witnesses do not take blood,instead of as it is given now.So it makes ok for both side. About the argument that people will believe it is right when given in scriptures...we can make links to bible gateway and people have their own options and as JW are always under debate they at least know there basic beleifs with the scriptures JW's use..jeho (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About the debate: The scriptures put at debate (about death in cross or stake) for that we could add the specific translation they use (NW) in bracket. Also its JW's own interpretation and readers are aware of that..And about psalms (good living conditions) it is JW's own interpretation as in the heading. So nothing we can say about the scriptures they use as it is JW's own interpretation.Readers are aware have there own opinions.But our duty is to mention their beliefs and scriptures they use to interpret without arguing to any side and hence we keep neutrality'..jeho (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Falling back on things being "their interpretation" sounds like a bit of a slippery slope toward justifying preachiness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No slopping its neutral..people have there own options but it is important to at least mention their most beleifs..jeho (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

neutral selection of non distinctive beliefs from table

If you intend to trim some beliefs from the summary table because you feel that the belief is not distinctive for JW when compared to mainstream Christians or it is not neutral then please mention the belief here and then make decision after the talk is over.Because I feel almost all the beliefs given there are distinctive when compared to mainstream Christians and are hence required.Also please note that Jehovah's witnesses are not included in mainstream Christianity category.jeho (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Breaking of the table

I have argued with reasons above to keep the table without splitting in to other places.I feel the table given at last makes it easy for the common reader who don't want much details to get most of JW beliefs easily without much reading.Also it contains many distinctive teaching of JW which are not mentioned in the article.Finally, a summary(means recap or shorter version of whole concept) is always written at the end of the article. But if someone intend to split please notify here first with the reasons and then make decision after having the talk..jeho (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the table for now, as it may be a copyright violation. It can still be discussed, however in its current form, it is neither appropriate, nor a summary of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of scriptures in the table

please keep in mind the scriptures given in the table are interpreted by JW only as given in the table heading. It is used to give information to the advanced reader about the scriptures JW use to interpret their own beliefs. And it does not mean to coerce the reader as the topic is dedicated to JW beliefs. Also the reader is aware the interpretations are JW's own and not accepted generally .What ever JW believe we have included it in a neutral way.And hence I ask u all not to make a religious debate with the scripture. But for other reasons please inform here and then make decision once the talk is over.jeho (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The table is excessively long and detailed for an encyclopedia article and repeats material already in the article. Some of the scriptures offer only dubious support for the statements. It is effectively hijacking the article to present argumentive detail. Readers seeking such content would be better served by simply providing an external link to that table at the JW website. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The table when compared to the long article is short and simple.As the topic is dedicated to beliefs and practices of JW's only, it should be noted that an Encyclopedia(means A comprehensive reference work with numerous aspects of particular field) is expected to give almost all JW's believes with explanation.But here only core beleifs or not even all core beliefs are given in article.You think it would be then large to fit inside the page.If you feel like that one option is to keep beliefs and practices separately in two articles.Or another option is what I did here with the table.Readers are not hijacked, are you? probably No.Hijacked or not Hijacked cannot be supported as a reason for keeping things as it should be kept. You may not worried about what you said Dubious support for statements because,any Reader who is so serious about religion could too understand it is dubious as you said if he is interested like you or if he is thinking of changing religion.Further if someone reduce the scriptures by keeping only the scriptures that are directly supporting the belief,then he would be probably making the article to support the beliefs strongly from scripture.So it is advisable to keep all scriptures JW's use to interpret, whether it could be understood directly or indirectly that shouldn't be bothered.Further our aim is not mix argument rather to include some useful information about JW beliefs. Also you said it is repetitive,but don't you know a summary means a recap or shorter version of whole concept? so it is important for an encyclopedia to include such things otherwise we can call it as a dictionary.Simply providing an external link may be necessary in case we want to have a detailed explanation of each belief.But for merely stating all their general beliefs the table is easy and simple to comprehend by a first look....jeho (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is too big instead of trying to remove some important distinct beliefs divide it separately in to practices and beliefs..jeho (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In this instance, it was your repetitive multi-section responses that were too long; I was not referring to the (copyvio) table (though that also is too long as a 'summary').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this table, being lifted straight from a JW webpage, is that it is not a summary of this article. It contains elements that are not considered at this article at all (some of which might be notable enough to add), and there are elements in the article that are not summarised by the table at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

U keep saying again and again the phrase "lifted from JW page",but where can one expect the correct beliefs of JW other than from their own website or their own magazines? The table contains beliefs followed by JW but in addition there are some important distinct beliefs missing too.So if those missing beliefs are not in the article its our duty to include them to in the article with interpretation they give.Otherwise what is the need of encyclopedia article specially dedicated for their beliefs and practices? So it is good to use the table content which can not only summarize the article but also can at least state other major beliefs of them which are not mentioned in the article.I will be trying to find those beliefs which you said not in article and add data too..jeho (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Either the table, lifted from the WT website, has to be reworded completely to avoid the problem of copyright violation, or be removed entirely and an external link added. It's not acceptable to copy such work from a website to Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is based on sources, it doesn't simply reproduce them. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of the table does not correspond to the content of the article. I am not saying that JW literature cannot be used to cite JW beliefs. However, there is limited value in a somewhat arbitrary selection of beliefs in a table in comparison to what is actually in the article. As already stated, some of the concepts missing from the article but present in the table could be added, however, what about the reverse?? What about the elements that are not covered in the table? Are you going to suggest a synthesis of other elements, or do you want to just ignore them entirely because they're not from the JW site? Also, it would be better to have the relevant parts of each table in each relevant section rather than a 'summary' that is longer than many of the sections combined.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope I am not saying to ignore some beliefs what you said to ignore,but I don't remember any other major belief their ignored.I found holy spirit was ignored and hence added.Also I checked the article with the summary.Almost all the points in the summary are being mentioned in the article directly or indirectly...jeho (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be that the article covers what is in the table but the reverse is definitely not true. The table does not cover everything that is in the article. It is therefore not a "summary". It is, however against Wikipedia's copyright policy, so I have removed the table.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See here.The removed part of article is subjected to fair use.It should be reverted.Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

When Considering the nature of copyrighted work the watchtower publications,they are of non-profit distribution and hence can be used under educational purpose here. Hence the article is under fair use policy of Wikipedia.so it should be reverted..Matrix356 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Table reflected the summary of article,and only a small portion of the JW magazine is copied here.The arguements by user Jehonathan was not satifactorly answered and user Jeffro had done decision wrongly without considering fair copyright.But table is useful as per above talks though some changes may necessary.Matrix356 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

One JW's and tons of uncomfortable ex-JW's ha ha..I am at 20 and proud no one here could stop my reasonable arguments and finally as they found no other way to stop my arguments simply deleted the table with a treacherous copyright scheme. Any way remember even if u die here you people cannot stop JW's anywhere.The one who is wise and humble he will attain godly wisdom,others who think they are wiser than Godly organization which helped them to attain basics are mere fools.I will be around in my mother tongue Malayalam Wikipedia then.There no much people like you who are so much discomforted by JW's rather they encourage me to write.At least there I could write neutral articles exposing what we believe with the table of scriptures.Learn Malayalam and come there to delete because I am going to hijack(as you fear) many there to JW with bible.One thing also don't forget please delete this comment,otherwise you won't be comfortable in your seat.."Happy is the men who not sit beside ridicules and fools,but whose delight in the law of Jehovah"..Goodbye to English Wikipedia..:) jeho (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Request has been given for third opinion..Matrix356 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an entirely false claim that the table is a representative summary of the article in which it has been pasted (that is, it does not accurately correspond to the article content - there are elements in the table not considered in the article, and there are elements in the article not considered in the table). If the information is to be retained, it needs to be separated with the relevant points in the relevant sections. The bulky table separate from the relevant sections is not helpful as a 'summary' and is longer than many of the sections combined. If the elements of the table are to be retained, there should be adequate balance by providing similar information for other sections in the article for which the table is not at all representative. Additionally, using the entire table as is would certainly seem to be an "Excessively long copyrighted excerpt" (WP:COPYVIO). Using that particular table just because it's from the official JW site is not neutral. Vying for its retention when it is not a representative summary of the article about which its proponent claims it is, is clearly biased.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

jeho: "even if u die here you people cannot stop JW's anywhere ... others who think they are wiser than Godly organization which helped them to attain basics are mere fools" - please quit the religious rhetoric. If you were honest, you would note that I have supported including scriptures JWs use to interpret the points in the various sections in the article, but not using some table claiming to be a 'summary' that is not actually a summary of the sections in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you still seeking a Third Opinion on this issue? That is for situations in which there is a dispute between two editors, but I see more than two here. (Easy mistake to make, I've done it myself). Figureofnine (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks for intervention. Dispute is over. But by the way as Jeffro mentioned I would be adding relevant scripture locations in future, including scriptures JWs use to interpret the points in the various sections of the article. Many scriptures I have in mind but as it is required to cite reference to them I would search and add later when I get time(may after months,because too busy to get time).Don't think I would add as like in watch tower, but I will follow this fashion.

eg)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christians are required to obey the command at 1 Corinthians 1:10 (NWT) to "speak in agreement" by (interpretation goes here).

I found in most places in the article it seems just the belief is described there, without mentioning the biblical argument JW's give for them. Whether the argument is wrong or right that's not the case but an encyclopedia expects it as the topic is now dedicated only to JW beleifs.Also as this is beliefs section scriptures and interpretations need to play more here because JW's rejects traditional ideas. Expect some more beliefs not mentioned in the article too ...matrix356 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Matrix356, how are you able to declare that the dispute is over when it was begun by another user, Jehonathan, who raised the issue and suddenly disappeared with the bizarre message "Goodbye to English Wikipedia" here? I find it curious that within a short period of time you edited your own page, and then Jehonathon's user page[1], then Jehonathon's talk page[2] (where you deleted his childish outburst, marking it as a minor edit) before continuing 12 minutes later with an edit to your own user page[3]. Both your account and Jehonathan's were created within three hours of each other and you are both active on remarkably similar articles. You both write with a similarly mangled English. I hope you realise that sockpuppetry, or using a second account in an attempt to deceive others, is considered a serious breach of trust and may result in your being blocked. I'm interested in your response, because this may need to be investigated. You have already been questioned on this issue here with giving an adequate response. BlackCab (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find I break trust you should prove it because I only said that I know user:jehonathan.I edited and removed some text from his page because he don't want to continue. May be you are right he is childish at his teen age.Mangled English is correct because native language is not English for both. I mentioned to 3rd party that dispute is over because user:jehonathan is not going to comeback anymore here in english wiki you can find him in ml wiki.Also I am not going to argue for his side anymore. That's why I said I would do as per the wiki rules about quoting scriptures rather that making a table as user:jehonathan said. There is nothing here for a ban because no serious crimes occurred here. Don't you know banned users can access from another IP with another ID ? Don't you know the NO DISCOURAGE rules that should be applied to a new wikipedian?.Be cool I found you too childish because you replied Good bye there which I removed...matrix356 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For blackCab->I repeat I have not did any thing to be banned.I honestly accepted that I know user:jehonathan. The dispute was with Jefroo, but you are so crazy and not have the patience to quit.Study about IP's first and don't try to play to IT people with your English.Your plans would never work.Nothing is going to happen with your investigation request or checkuser.If I am banned because of your impatience, I always have other options-:).Will not reply to any more conversations...matrix356 (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do add scriptures to the article, 1) there should be a source for them (e.g. a Watchtower reference that uses the specific scripture to support the particular belief), as adding scriptures you decide are relevant would be original research; 2) they should relate directly to the subject of the section, not a tangent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jefroo is mature than blackCab .I will do as you said in future edits..matrix356 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion declined. I have no opinion on the underlying issue because I do not understand it, as it has not been clearly stated. There is talk of a table, but there is no table in the article or in recent versions. Suggestion: if any of the editors are interested in disputed resolution, I suggest adding a "request for comment" with a clear statement of the dispute. Third Opinion is for questions involving a dispute between two editors, but this appears to involve more than two. Figureofnine (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The table under dispute has been removed and currently the other user is not active.Its been so long and since then many changes had occurred.(The article was split).Hence I suggest to Remove the dispute from 3rd option category..Thank you..matrix356 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so. Actually I was remiss in not removing it previously as I was obliged to remove it prior to responding. Figureofnine (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The article is large having two different vast concepts namely belief and practice(99 kb).I Strongly suggest to split the article as per wiki rules.see here

>60 KB -> Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

In our case we cannot justify because the scope itself can be split and is a large subject to fit together..Matrix356 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support splitting to two separate articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Had been split...need clean up and adjustment as necessary..Matrix356 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

These splits normally are discussed for more than a few hours before being implemented.
Also, this opportunity may be used to bring this article title in line with the general trend of listing the religion, philosophy, or group first and the word "beliefs" afterward. Consider these article names:

By contrast, I could find only two other articles on group beliefs which begin with the word "Beliefs of":

I recommend changing the article name to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs (and Jehovah's Witnesses practices).

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that hours rule,but was bold enough to split see here.There it states "If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split, although discussion on the article talk page or associated Wiki Project is a way of seeking a consensus"..Thank you..humblefool 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehonathan (talk • contribs)

Yes you are right.Shall Change it to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs..Thank you for your nice illustration.At least you here supportive for a neutral argument..Matrix356 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There was clear delineation between the main sections of the article. There may be some need to shift (or copy and adapt) some thoughts from one article to the other that could relate to both beliefs and practices, though that doesn't mean duplicating entire sections. I'll look at that more closely later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Criticism

I inform the editors it is not a good practice to insert criticism inside an article which is dedicated for Beliefs. All such criticism should be shifted to the dedicated criticism article and they have no place here..

sample:

Following a Governing Body committee investigation and subsequent purge of high-level members at the religion's Brooklyn headquarters in 1980, a summary of "wrong teachings" being promoted as "new understandings" was issued, which included the suggestion that God did not have an organization on earth.[46] Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, who was expelled as part of the purge, has subsequently criticized the Watch Tower concept of organization, which posits that God does not deal with individuals apart from an organization.[47] He claims the concept has no scriptural support and serves only to reinforce the religion's authority structure, with its strong emphasis on human authority.[48] He also claims that The Watchtower has repeatedly blurred discussions of both Jesus Christ's loyalty to God and the apostles' loyalty to Christ to promote the view that Witnesses should be loyal to the Watch Tower organization.[49] Sociologist Andrew Holden has observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement itself,[50] and other researchers have claimed that challenging the views of those higher up the hierarchical ladder is regarded as tantamount to challenging God himself.[51]

The above criticism is irrelevant to the topic where how the organizational beliefs is briefed. It should find right place in the criticism section.I have moved it to criticism main article. I am wondering know why editors are always finding ways to insert criticism.matrix356 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism#Kinds of article subjects. This states that it is appropriate to locate evaluation of the topic within its article, provided the criticism is distinct from the initial explanation. The concept of "God's organization" is a distinctive JW teaching and it is notable that disagreement with that core teaching was one of the chief factors that led to the 1980 purge within Brooklyn Bethel. Franz's criticism is presented succinctly, with a measured explanation of why he thinks the Watch Tower Society holds that teaching. BlackCab (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. But in many articles which is graded above this article like those of theology and beliefs of catholic church, such criticisms are not included.Further the criticism para is large when compared to the two para above it.It should be trimmed..

Your action on weeds para is unjustified.You removed the basic distinct belief of JW para on weeds by justifying that it is large.On the other hand you inserted a large paragraph on criticism for your Interest.I Strongly disagree and Reverted that with some edits...

04:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.0.11 (talk)

To User:117.199.0.11 in Trivandrum, India, presumably either User:Matrix356 or User:Jehonathan, who both use IP addresses within a very close range: Your comparison with articles on the Catholic Church are a variant of WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFF, neither of which are particularly persuasive. The criticism is relevant to the topic and is appropriately located. BlackCab (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)