User talk:Downstrike

re Little Amber pic
Basically, pictures used on Wikipedia have to be in the public domain. This is a simplification and there are exceptions, but that's the general rule. Any and all pictures displayed on littleamber.com are under copyright and cannot be used. It is possible that they could be used under "fair use", see WP:FU. Herostratus 04:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Likely, California
Hi, I have moved your recently created article Likely california to Likely, California as per place name conventions on Wikipedia. The article name as you created it will now redirect people to the new page name. --JoeTalkWork 01:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially, the only error you made was not creating the page with a title that matched those for similar articles, for example Adin, California - Wikipedia won't do this for you so all you can do is check similar pages for an indication of how it should be done. If you want to move a page the proper way to do it is to click the 'Move' tab at the top of the article - for most pages this will immediately move the article page and talk page to the new page name and create a redirect from the old page name. When I started on Wikipedia I didn't know this to begin with and made a mistake when I simply copy/pasted the contents of a page to a page name which matched similar articles. Another user helpfully showed me how to do it properly and pointed out that using the 'Move' tab moves the whole article and talk page and creates a redirect from the old page name. You may also want to check Help:Moving_a_page and Requested_moves. If you need a hand with anything else just leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, JoeTalkWork 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A belated thank you, for your help :^)

Accusations
Do not make accusations or insinuations about me, as you did here. If this continues, you will be reported.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The ambiguous restating of and speculation about another editor's unsubstantiated claims against me, as you did here, makes your intention unclear. Would you care to clarify?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I observed that you have been victimized by the perception that you and LTSally think you own that article, and that your reaction to that perception is understandable.


 * If that seems like an accusation to you, I'm sorry that you perceive it that way, just as I'm sorry that others perceive you as thinking you own the article.


 * My point was that we need to take action to change that perception; not only for your sake, but particularly for the sake of the article. For this reason, I appreciated your question whether there is some other statement for which I would like to use the documentary.  I have something in mind, but I've felt very ill.  I hope to get to it shortly.
 * I initially misread what you'd said, but was still a little unclear about your intent, but I think it's all good. It is unfortunate that there are not more editors to regularly contribute to the JW articles, however the controversial nature of the articles tends to attract strongly anti- and pro- editors rather than neutral editors, because most neutral editors simply aren't interested in the subject; editors who desire to insert inappropriate or untrue information or to remove facts they consider unfavorable often become upset that their views do not remain in the article for long, and it is generally those editors who complain about perceived 'ownership' by other editors. The articles can (eventually and gradually) benefit from both pro- and anti- views, so long as those are tempered by some objectivity. If the regular editors sat back and did nothing when strong anti- and pro- edits were made, the article would very quickly decay. Short of that, I can only continue to request that editors discuss edits that do not find consensus.
 * Other than interaction within Wikipedia, I do not know, have no affiliation with, and cannot speak for LTSally.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm afraid that holds true for most any controversial topic. Only a person who feels strongly about it, is likely to contribute.  Others are probably not knowledgeable, and will probably fear repercussions.

Memorialized Project
I used this space to work on a project that I abandoned in March 2010. I'm preserving the work done here, to memorialize the amount of work that can be wasted when WP editors try to make sense of sloppy work done by previous editors, presenting it as a lesson. In this case, the most relevant source citation on a particular topic was garbled to the point that I did not recognize its relevance. (See reference #2.)
 * User pages should not be used for keeping your preferred version of article content per WP:UP. If you want to keep a record of your work, you should save it on alternative website or on your own computer. The non-Talk content below can be deleted at any time by any user.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though I never achieved a preferred version, I suppose. I'll look for a more appropriate place for it. Downstrike (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Predictions for 1975
Analyzing this section, found at History of Jehovah's Witnesses, I found that it contains at least:


 * 4 statements of POV (Point of View) not supported by the sources cited.
 * 3 second-hand citations.
 * 1 source citation containing irrelevant material.
 * 1 redundant citation.
 * 1 run-on citation of apparently 3 sources. (Oops!  There were 4.)
 * 1 citation quote edited to give a false impression of support for a POV.
 * 3 instances of unexplained insider jargon.
 * Most citations are in obsolete formats.
 * The entire section is a single bloated paragraph, incoherently composed, and presented out of context.

-

The Current Section
From 1966, Witness publications heightened anticipation of Christ's thousand-year millennial reign beginning in late 1975. In what became a replay of the 1925 cycle of excitement, anticipation and then disappointment, Witness publications and convention talks intensified focus on 1975 as the "appropriate" time for God to act, with statements that "the immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events ... within a few years at most the final parts of the Bible prophecy relative to these 'last days' will undergo fulfillment". The May 1974 issue of the Watch Tower Society's newsletter, Kingdom Ministry, commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining. The number of baptisms soared from about 59,000 in 1966, to more than 297,000 in 1974, but membership declined after expectations for the year failed. In 1976 The Watchtower advised those who had been "disappointed" by the failure of the predictions for 1975 to adjust their viewpoint because their understanding had been "based on wrong premises",, but four years later, after several proposals by Governing Body members to apologise to Witnesses were voted down, the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975.

-

The Work Progress
-

Chronology

Beginning in 1966, Watch Tower Society publications and convention lectures heightened anticipation of the end of the first 6,000 years of mankind's existence from the time Adam was created, in late 1975. Also beginning in that year, presentations of the chronological basis of that conclusion were consistently accompanied by disclaimers that the Watch Tower Society was not predicting that anything would occur then, frequently accompanied by a statement forbidding Jehovah's Witnesses to predict that any event would occur then.

Prediction

Beginning in 1968, their publications and convention lectures predicted Christ's Millennial Reign would coincide with the sixth millennium of the seven-thousand-year-long seventh day of creation, and explained that the seventh day of creation did not begin until an unknown length of time after Adam was created.[Genesis 1:27-31, 2:7-22] Therefore, the seventh millennium of the seventh day would begin, the same unknown length of time after the end of the first 6,000 years of mankind's existence, rather than in the autumn of 1975. The Watch Tower Society also told Jehovah's Witnesses that "Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these “last days” will undergo fulfillment, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christ’s glorious 1,000-year reign."

Date Unknown

The Watch Tower Society presented their own headquarters expansion and building of new branch offices as an example of acting '"with a view to the continued expansion of the work this side of the “great tribulation”'. They urged Jehovah's Witnesses to "Serve with Eternity in View" rather than "speculating about a certain date", so that "whenever the 'tribulation' breaks out, we will be found busy and zealously carrying out the assignment we have",  and explained that they did not need to know when Jesus would begin reigning.   A spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses stated that only spiritually immature members believed that Armageddon was coming in 1975.

The Watch Tower Society renounced the expectation that Jesus would begin reigning at the beginning of the seventh mellinium in the January 1, 1975 Watchtower, because even though Jesus "knew exactly when God’s seventh creative day, his great “rest” day began and when it would end ... when he was on earth he did not know the day and hour of his execution of judgment on this world".

News Reports

In media publication, predictions that Armageddon would occur in 1975 were only attributed to Jehovah's Witnesses by news sources outside the control of the Watch Tower Society. Beginning in February 1975, some news sources reported the Watch Tower Society's 1968 explanation that Christ's reign would not begin until the beginning of the seventh millennium, rather than in 1975. However, they reported it as a new development, rather than in its historical context.

When prominent sources publish such sensational reports, other sources frequently pick up and reprinted their articles. Some news sources used their attribution of the 1975 prophecy to Jehovah's Witnesses as a premise to ridicule them, and some news sources continue to do so 35 years later.

The Watch Tower Society regularly acknowledges the self-sacrifice of Jehovah's Witnesses who give up homes and other material advantages to serve full time,   and the May 1974 issue of the Watch Tower Society's newsletter, Kingdom Ministry, commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining. Some news sources quoted this statement in the context of the 1975 prediction they attributed to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Growth and Decline

The number of baptisms increased from about 59,000 in 1966, to more than 297,000 in 1974, but membership declined after expectations for 1975 failed, including a nine per cent drop in total publishers (door-to-door preachers) and a 38 per cent drop in pioneers (full-time preachers) in the Netherlands. Stark and Iannoccone analyzed the impact on Witnesses in the United States. Statistics showed a net increase of publishers worldwide from 1971–1981 of 737,241, while baptisms totaled 1.71 million for the same period.

Responsibility

In 1976 The Watchtower advised that if "anyone has been disappointed" by the failure of their expectations for 1975, they should adjust their viewpoint, because their understanding had been "based on wrong premises" According to Raymond Franz, proposals were brought to the Governing Body in 1976, 1977 and 1979 that a statement should be made acknowledging that the Watch Tower Society had made an error, but Milton Henschel and others recommended the wiser course would be to ignore the matter and hope Witnesses would eventually forget about it. The March 15, 1980 Watchtower explained that those needing to adjust their viewpoint included any Jehovah's Witnesses "having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date."

Concerning responsibility for building up hope regarding 1975, the same 1980 Watchtower reminded Jehovah's Witnesses of the biblical warning to Thessalonians, "we request of you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here." It explained that although the Watch Tower Society published cautionary statements, other statements implying that predicted events could be expected by 1975 "overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated" by the chronology in "the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God".

-

Comments
-

Although I gathered sources for citations before writing new text, I haven't formatted them yet, so many citations are currently missing, or remain in obsolete formats, as found in the current article. Downstrike (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

-

I'm concerned about the lone sentence in the last paragraph, stating that the WTS has not renounced the expectation. How does one document the fact that something has not happened? Can such a factual statement be included without citing a source, or does it simply not belong in Wikipedia? Downstrike (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently reread Ignore_all_rules, and wonder if this would cover it?


 * I've removed that sentence, because further research has shown it to be incorrect. Downstrike (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-

The material produced by my research on this subject has far surpassed what I expected to write for a mere article section. It seems to me now, that there is enough here to produce a spin-off page. Downstrike (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this more and more disturbing, because not only should this information be more of a historical footnote, but the more I research it, the more apparent it becomes that the assertion that the Watch Tower Society predicted anything would happen in autumn of 1975 was a hoax! Downstrike (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-

'''I have finally found a quotation from a Watch Tower Society publication that fits the description, "implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility". It's cited in the current wording of the article, but with no particular statement attributed. Its citation includes doi and author fields from an article about an entirely different subject from an entirely different source, and it's cited next to another citation that seemed to attribute an entirely different statement. The content of this source completely changes the background of the 1975 issue, so if it had been cited clearly, I probably never would undertaken this miserable project!''' Downstrike (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-


 * There seem to be some weaselish statements in your draft. This statement is quite weaselish:
 * In this context, some of these sources quoted a May 1974 issue of the Watch Tower Society's newsletter, Kingdom Ministry, commending Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining.


 * This is not an attempt attribute the Kingdom Ministry's statement to the news sources, or to dig at them, but to show the context of how the public became aware of the Kingdom Ministry's statement. I will consider how I can word it to make that clear. Downstrike (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the statement from the Kingdom Ministry is presented clearly, it doesn't really matter how the public became aware of what it said, and it is much more neutral to simply state what was stated in that source. The import of the commendation (of people selling their homes in the 'short time' remaining) is not altered by how other people might have learned of it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The importance of the context in which the statement was presented to the public was not apparent to you because the information presented was incomplete. This is a work in progress, and my work is frequently interrupted by downloads of Real Life.  However, this information is what I was working on today, so the contextual information is now a little more complete. Downstrike (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the context. Indeed, the other quotes you've provided of commending JWs who spend a long time in full-time service do not make any statement similar to the 74 KM's reference to members who "finish out the rest of their days in ... the short time remaining..." The comparison you've presented attempts to water down the statement in the 74 KM with an invalid comparison.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The significance of that wording, and of the other commendations as context, is a POV that will depend upon the reader's perception of what the Watchtower said about 1975. That's something we need to let readers evaluate, instead of leaving them uninformed.  I hope that I've improved the neutrality of that paragraph's tone. Downstrike (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still an awful lot of POV pushing in your draft (implying news sources deliberately published misinformation, general apologetic wording on behalf of the Watch Tower Society, making invalid comparisons of commending long-time preachers with statements about short time left, drawing conclusions for readers, etc), but I'll leave you to it for a while, (subject to change without notice). As it stands, your preferred version would not last long in the live article space, but I haven't the time to consider every point just yet.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a version that I prefer. It isn't even complete, and I already question the relevance of the amount of the material I have. That's why it's here on my own Talk page, instead of on the article's Talk page - much less the actual article - it's not ready to be presented. I appreciate you coming around and giving me feedback about it.

To be honest, I've already changed wording in an attempt not to push POV or to imply that the misinformation in the news sources was deliberate. (My first word for it was disinformation, and fortunately I researched the meaning of that word and changed it.) However, the more I learn about how inaccurate it was, the more I wonder whether their journalism could really have been that inept. Downstrike (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-


 * It would be more appropriate to state: The May 1974 issue of the Watch Tower Society's newsletter, Our Kingdom Ministry, commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining. rather than making a sly dig at 'some news sources'. Also, in the statement, Although the context makes this seem unlikely, some critics have interpreted this statement as the Watch Tower Society admitting responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975., the expression Although the context makes this seem unlikely is drawing a conclusion for readers not supported in the text. The original article states:


 * This was an attempt to follow a WP editing guideline I read a while back. Naturally, I can't find the guideline page now, where I read it. I will continue to search for it, so I can make sure to follow the guideline. Downstrike (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline I'm following is at Wikipedia:NPOV:


 * Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by independent reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.


 * I have more research to do toward finding the source of the article's currently stated POV, but so far, my attempts to find that source have only produced statements on other web sites that were apparently based upon the POV currently stated in the article. (One of the hazards of placing an unsourced POV in a WP article is that it frequently seems to become impossible to find the original source afterward, among all the online statements that show the unsourced POV in WP as proof of the POV.)   In the absence of that source's reasoning on the POV, and in light of the sources my research did find, the currently stated POV seems to be erroneous.  However, rather than ignore it and leave all online statements that relied upon the currently stated POV dangling, I'm acknowledging that some critics believe that POV.


 * However, I see that the wording can be improved, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Downstrike (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There were ... statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated . ... If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint... In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date .
 * There is a clear admission that those JWs involved in producing the articles published by the Watch Tower Society were the cause of 'built up expectations', and this should not be relegated to an unsourced claim by 'critics'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what the current wording tells us about that statement, but that is not clear at all, and no source has been provided for that POV. (If it weren't for such blatant NPOV violations, I probably wouldn't be working on this.)  The complete sentence states:  "Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility."


 * The Watchtower does not say who made the other statements . Instead, it prefaced this statement with a biblical quotation warning about "a verbal message or through a letter as though from us".


 * My research finds that instead of the Watchtower stating that Christ would begin reigning in 1975, news sources made reports as though the Watchtower had stated that. Some Jehovah's Witnesses did have to with the publication of those reports, because they were based upon interviews with individuals who disobeyed the Watchtower by saying that Christ would begin reigning in 1975.  (This seems to be what what the Watchtower calls Independent Thinking.) Downstrike (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation (of saying it was just the other sources that were misleading) is incorrect. The article states The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information . So they didn't merely say it was non-Witness sources that were to blame for the buildup of expectations but specifically included Witnesses at the Watch Tower Society involved in publication of JW literature.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't specify which information, or who published it. Downstrike (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Watchtower article in question makes absolutely no reference to any non-JW sources for any statements that built up expectations about 1975. The article states that the "other satements" were published "along with" the cautionary ones, not separately from some other source. The article also states that it was the eagerness of "Christians" (meaning only JWs) that led to those expectations. The quote from Thessalonians is used to illustrate a situation that might have existed in the time of first-century Christians, however, the article makes absolutely no exposition on those words in particular, let alone any reference to [non-Witness] news sources being the source of built up expectations regarding 1975.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At any rate, after 2 weeks of hunting for it, I finally found a quotation from an Awake! article that fit the description. Naturally, its existence makes most of my research - and the POV based on it - irrelevant. Downstrike (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At best, concluding that the admittedly vague article only put the blame on those involved in publication of non-Witness material is POV speculation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to say that only other sources were implicated, because the cited source doesn't clearly support that. I think that my current wording reflects that.  Downstrike (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement, "However, the context of the biblical warning, combined with the fact that news sources published the predictions as though they were from Jehovah's Witnesses, despite the Watch Tower Society prohibiting Jehovah's Witnesses making such predictions, casts doubt on this." quite distinctly suggests that it is those other sources that were the cause of building up false hopes. That unsourced statement is speculative commentary.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't speculation. As  previously described, the 1975 prediction is present in the news sources, and absent from the Watchtower sources.  That does cast doubt on the assertion that the Watchtower would accept blame for the prediction.  Should I cite those sources all over again, at this point?  That seems like overkill to me.


 * However, I think I see what you're probably trying to get at; Watchtower published the chronology that pointed to 1975 as the 6000th anniversary of man's creation, and the prediction couldn't have occurred without that chronology, and publication of the chronology is mentioned in their statement. I'll consider what change to make to the wording.

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Copyright violations
Hi Downstrike, Can you please do us all a favor and read WP:COPYPASTE and WP:COPYVIO. Dropping lengthy "excerpts" from the Awake! magazine into Wiki articles as you did here and here is not acceptable. BlackCab (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)