Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 5.1

relations between JWs and non-JWs
Hi Danny, I wonder why you commented out the whole paragraph that I inserted yesterday evening. While we can certainly discuss about the details, I still think that the paragraph is important. We have had quite a long edit war about the introduction and I thought that maybe we can stop changing the introduction (non-trinitarian, mutual non-acceptance) when we move this to a paragraph of its own. I think that it is a highly important fact that JWs do not accept any religions beside them, not even Christian groups that otherwise share quite a lot of common Chrisian beliefs. In this regard the question of baptism _is_ important. I did not intend that passage to be of baptist bias. It is highly unusual for a Baptist denomination not to accept baptisms of believers of other Baptist denominations. This was meant as an illustration about how grave JWs consider the differences to other Christian groups. Considering typos: I have to admit that I am not a native speaker, but I checked it thoroughly. If there are typos, feel free to change them. I did not see any improperly cited references. The interwiki links are meant exactly as they are. And I think they are right. I do not know what you mean by improperly cited references. Maybe you are talking about the quotation from Reasoning from Scriptures. For that (in English) I only have the CD-ROM edition that does not give page numbers, but if you have that at hand as a book, you will certainly find it, it is right at the beginning of the chapter "Babylon the great". Concerning baptism, I think that it is not neccessary to elaborate this in the main article. I think the details belong to the article "doctrines of JW". For this article it is sufficient to say that JWs do not believe in infant baptism. There was an explicit link "for details see =>doctrines of JWs" Summary: I do not understand why you consider the passage to be problematic. The relations between JWs and other Christians must somehow be mentioned in Wikipedia. For all JWs and most other Christians this is a main point in the discussion of JWs beliefs. If you leave this out, I think that a lot of material is missing. So how do we go on from here? Heiko Evermann 08:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hi Danny, one more thing: I would prefer to write "converts from any other Christian denomination" and not "converts from any other churches of Christendom". Today "Christianity" is the usual English word. Google lists more than 3 Mio pages with this word. "Christendom" only has a google count of 155.000. The word is out of date. And to my ear (apart from the insertion "other") it sounds to much like JW slang. Would you agree to such a change? And I would also like to see an explanation why baptisms of Baptist churches are not considered to be valid. That is highly unusual and the reader should get to know this interesting fact. Heiko Evermann 09:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Danny, I sure appreciate your work, your maturity, and your patience. You and Heiko are dialoguing in an exemplary fashion. Tom - Talk 14:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Heiko,


 * Thanks for introducing the new section. As I'm sure you noticed in my comments, I do believe that "the subject matter might be worthy of inclusion." Yet the reason for my commenting it out is that in its present form the text was problematic enough that I felt it needed more revision before it was "made public." It's not the subject matter, but the present handling of it. So let's see what we can do to get your contribution polished. (I appreciate that English is not your first language and can see that that is no doubt the explanation for the majority of required edits.) It's just that there would have been so many changes I would have to have made that I felt that had I done that would have been starting another "edit war."


 * I agree that it is important to develop this section. So on to the points:


 * Baptism - perhaps this should be moved to the Doctrines ... article, with a shorter blurb here. Perhaps, "JW's do baptize believers, but Infant baptism is not practiced among." As for the point about Baptists, if you want to include that "as an illustration about the differences between JS's and other Christian groups," then maybe you could word it something like, "... for example, Baptist denominations generally accept baptisms of believers of other Baptist denominations ..."


 * Citations - The word "Scriptures" in the citation "Reasoning from the scriptures ... " wasn't capitalized. As it's a reference book, it's appropriate to refer to the subjects as "Subject" not "keyword" or "chapter." BTW, page number and paragraph references are shown on the WT CD on the bottom right hand corner of the window.


 * I'll have to continue my reply to your post later as I have to get to work!!! Cheers, --DannyMuse 15:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses regard their religion as true Christianity and they do all the other Christianity groups as Christendom. But I think this is POV. Rantaro 00:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed the commenting out mainly because I think it's a poor way to go about editing an article. It became a real problem when someone came along and inserted a bunch of (probably copyrighted) material into the section, that wasn't visible on the page. If it needs to be worked on somewhere before making it public, do it on a scratch page or on someone's talk page, or just edit it right here on the page. Every wikipedia article is a work in progress anyway. Wesley 04:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. --DannyMuse 06:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a Scratchpad (User:Hawstom/Chalkboard) where maybe Danny and I can work on an alternate incarnation User:Hawstom/Chalkboard. Warning: I have pasted some copyrighted material from the JW website there. I want to try to get permission from them to use it, or I may just refer to it in writing a new version. Tom - Talk 15:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Tom, great idea. See my comments on the Chalkboard discussion page. --DannyMuse 15:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps surprisingly (???), I found some of the material at the JW web site to be more direct, informative, and unbiased than what we have here in the article. Tom - Talk 16:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well Tom, to me as a non-JW quite a lot of stuff that I find on JW websites or on their CD-ROM is direct, but also very biased and misleading. But that is just my POV. Please do not just copy their stuff into the article. The other side must be heard, too. Kind regards, Heiko Evermann 19:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm hearing you, buddy. What I am saying is this article beats around the bush and fails to disclose some points of interest that the JW web site does disclose. How are they organized, for example. By the way, you aren't forgetting, are you, that in "writing for the enemy", we are to have a "consistently sympathetic, positive tone"? This article will never stand substantially finished until it stands substantially satisfying to outsiders like me (who want facts) while at the same time standing substantially acceptable to JWs (who want fairness). As long as it lacks those attributes, it will be an edit-war magnet. Here's an example: you can't say, "These guys are automatons who all walk lock-step to the beat of the Watchtower Society leadership." But you can detail their organization, their hierarchy, etc. One reader may be a POV pushing crank who hates JWs and sees nefarious tones to everything they do. And the next guy who comes along may be totally impressed by their worldwide unity. That is the beauty of Wikipedia; we try not to manipulate the reader and we try to tell it all. Tom - Talk 07:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To Heiko, I have a question for you. Since you believe that "a lot of stuff that [JW's teach is] very biased and misleading." why are you taking part in a WP article about them? As you observed, "The other side must be heard, too." That may be true, but if it can't be NPOV then it shouldn't be here. You your self stated that your position regarding JW teachings is "just my POV." Perhaps you should start an article for that. May I suggest as a title, "Anti-Jehovah's Witness Rhetoric." --DannyMuse 16:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Danny, that question is easy to answer. We were talking about a list of points copied from a JW website. And I stated that this list is biased. I would not like that list to be copied literally into this article. Besides I think that quite a lot of things that JWs teach do not match with the Bible. (And I think that I can prove that from the Bible.) Now there are several JWs taking part in the editing process of this WP article. And I have noticed that they like to present their teaching as a biblical fact. I want to keep a close eye on the article to make sure that these points are represented as their interpretation and not just as a simple fact. Otherwise people who get interested in JWs might read the WP article and might take it as a proof for some of the claims of JWs. That would not be fair. WP should be a chance for such people to hear both sides. Besides there is quite a lot of stuff about JWs that has not yet been covered, or at least not in detail. And I would like to add those things. Baptism was one point, just to give an example. In doing that I am very careful to present these points fairly. I hope that you have noticed that. I do not think that my edits of the article were "Anti-Jehovah's Witness Rhethoric". I think that if I were a JW, I would still be satisfied with my edits. Kind regards Heiko Evermann 19:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having an opinion about a topic does not automatically disqualify a person from editing article on that topic. It's very hard to find someone who is both knowledgable about something and who doesn't have an opinion. What matters is the type and quality of the writing and editing. Also, if there were an article on "Anti-Jehovah's Witness Rhetoric", it would need to be about such rhetoric, not an article simply filled with examples of that kind of rhetoric. It would need to discuss the rhetoric from a NPOV. Do you see the difference? In the same way, neither this nor any other article can be a simple "Pro-Jehovah's Witness Propaganda" article. Wesley 18:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wesley, I understand your point and agree. There's certainly nothing wrong with having an opinion. The problem is when those opinions are presented as facts. Obviously, a lot of people disagree with the beliefs of JW's, some even violently.


 * But opinions are not what matters, it is as you observed it is the "type and quality of the writing and editing." To counter every mention of a JW belief or doctrine with a laundry list of opposing views/beliefs/editorial comments is bad writing. It suggests at the least an insecurity on the part of some of the contributors and perhaps even an outright bias. I also believe it is insulting to the hypothetical "uninformed reader" that might come here looking for useful, meaningful information. Does that person really need to be told at every point that not everyone agrees with JW's? Do they need every JW belief amended with a list of the beliefs of "competing" religions? I think not. Otherwise we could just change the entire format of this article to:


 * JW's believe [JW BELIEF HERE];
 * [RELIGION OF YOUR CHOICE] believes [OTHER BELIEF HERE].
 * I'm sure you see the absurdity of such a suggestion. Yet often it appears that our recent work here has degenerated to just that. Nevertheless, thanks for your continued encouragement and helpful suggestions. --DannyMuse 08:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the case of this article we have a short info in the introduction and one paragraph about opposition to JWs. The rest is about what JWs do and believe. When we have a look at the doctrines article, I think that it good, not just to state what JWs believe, but also to explain similarities and differences to other churches. Learning something is always easy, when you can compare it to other things that you already know. In some cases the new piece of information is similar, in some cases it is surprisingly different. And it really helps to see that. Take the baptism paragraph as an example. I think that what we now have, where you and I worked together, now is very informative. When discussing baptisms, it is important to state that you do it different from some churches and just the way some other churches do it. I think that this even _adds_ to your credibility. Isn't it good to see for a newbie in religion that you JWs do believers baptism, and that you are not even the only one to reject infant baptism? Please remember that the English wikipedia is also read by people from countries where infant baptism is what 99% of the people consider to be the norm? Not like e.g. in the USA, where a considerable amount of the population is baptised in Baptist churches? In a number of doctrinal points you can find other churches that believe the same way as you do. So why not add links to other pieces of information that show similarities? And where you differ, isn't it good for you to explain that you differ, where you differ and why you differ? Kind regards Heiko Evermann 09:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Heiko, Thanks for the response. I'm amused that you think I'm overreacting. Perhaps the sarcasm of my illustration were lost in the translation. However you're reference to our recent work on the Baptism topic only proves my point. There the references to the beliefs of others clarifies, expands on and amplifies the explanation of JW beliefs. First, that is not the kind of recent editorial problems I was referring to. Second, even that took several iterations and discussions between us to gain mutual understanding and find clear, concise language. That has not happened with the recent reversions and inserts exemplified by the revert in the intro. --DannyMuse 02:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Danny, you have been very patient and careful. What you perhaps have not done yet (at least it looks so to me), is read carefully Neutral Point of View. Wikipedians sling around the acronyms NPOV and POV all the time, and unfortunately much of the time the slinging is not based on good understanding of absolute and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. So it may be that the understanding you have "picked up" is partially incomplete or inaccurate. If you could take a week or so to read and ponder Neutral Point of View and its associated tutorial, you would acquire a certain authority that would really benefit your efforts here. I look forward to seeing your influence on Wikipedia grow, and with the personal qualities you have already shown, nothing will form a better basis for that than the authority that comes from firsthand grappling with the original document. Tom - Talk 21:49, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Tom, I have read it, but at your suggestion I will give it a re-read and some good pondering! --DannyMuse 08:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===Relations w JW's=== This needs alot more focus, an entire section here really. The people in my area hate JW's (literally), enough that when I started to tell them I had talked to some, I didn't finish the story, because my neighbors were so focused on how they hated them, wanted to chase them off, etc.. Myself, I may not have a pristine view of the organization as a whole, but I think its important to be kind to guests and whatnot, and its kinda nice somebody wants to stop by and talk about the bible w/o asking me for $ ;) Anyhow, I think the average persons opinion of JW's and its basis (perhaps a comparison / contrast w how they view mormons? or the avon lady??) should be discussed. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 00:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)