User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2008b

Kingdom songs
Hi. Could you check out the q. that i have arose here? I and Jsxwiki seem to disagree on whether this should be included in the article. I also find that information about this is difficult to prove.  Summer Song (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you been thinking more about this topic? Should it be mentioned or not? I am not sure about what sources to use, but I would like to think that this is an important thing to mention.

Summer Song (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Summer_Song

JW's are speaking up
Jeffro, It appears that JW's are attempting to edit the JW article without regard to wiki rules (or misguided efforts at least). Some help will needed to bring the article back in line with consensus. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my user page.
I must say Jeffro77, I have noticed your presence on the discussion page of "Jehovah's Witnesses." For some reason, I've been a bit confused about which side you were coming from on issues.
 * User_talk:Mandmelon

I am an inactive JW with no intention of returning. I don't believe in the Bible anymore either. To the best of my recollection, I have not placed one single reference to JW literature on any page. Maybe somebody substituted the refs I used. I have been using what I can get of book reviews on Google Books from Penton, Gruss and Holden, along with a journal article by somebody with a Japanese name.

Just because I only put two lines for "Jehovah" doesn't mean there couldn't be more. It was just a first draft. What was there before was either unreferenced or only referenced by WTS publications. I deleted it on principle, however I have since discovered a Wiki "rule" that says not to delete things on principle, so I have posted an "apology" for this course of action on the discussion page. I did that a couple of days ago. You will note that my two lines about "Jehovah" are from Holden, not WTS.

As for the Jesus section, I know it doesn't/didn't flow. (Somebody's reverted my changes, even though mine were referenced by third party sources, and the current paragraph isn't.) Again, it was a first draft. I deleted what was there for the same reason as above and started again. It was easier for me to put all the material sourced from one book into one paragraph. You will note that I have posted a suggestion for the "Jesus" section on the discussion page and it IS divided into paragraphs with a single theme. On reflection, perhaps a separate section entitled "Style of Worship" would be better to describe the attitude of JWs to non-worship of Jesus.

As for "Salvation", I honestly can't remember.

IMHO, the article needs extensive revamping. Although I agree with the comments of an administrator called Richard who calls himself an inclusionist, I also believe in the KISS principle. If it can be said in two sentences, then that's all it needs. There really is QUITE A LOT of information that could be covered.--Mandmelon (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I do remember including a Watchtower Society reference. It was in the Jesus section from the blood brochure. I don't know why a quote of half of sentence is a breach of copyright. I dispute that it is. I would like to see this comment in the Jesus section because it gives more depth to the subject. A compendium of information about JWs should not just be a collection of facts. It should seek to show significance, implications, impact of one fact on another etc. It wasn't original research. That's how the WTS connects those two ideas. --Mandmelon (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my page re article needing extensive work. I've put in a reference to Penton at the top of the article that lists the four major reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses are significant in the world at large. If they were put into headings (I don't like the current headings for reasons of to do with conciseness), they would be "Neutrality" (encompassing everything from non-voting, non-fighting, Witnesses in Nazi Germany, not running for political office, students at school avoiding anything that involves being elected, not saluting the flag/singing the national anthem, political party cards in Malawi, imprisonment during wartime and peacetime for conscientious objection, allegations of double standards in the case of Mexican brothers being allowed to illegal buy cartillas, and possibly that JWs don't seek to change other people's attitudes other than by conversion with a couple of qualifications), "Court cases" (freedom of speech and worship, blood transfusions, and the controversial 1987 publication "Direct and Cross-Examination Questions in Child Custody Cases" would fit there too), "Bloodless medical treatment" and "Worldwide missionary and publishing activity." That way, beliefs and history can be put into some sort of context. At the moment, they're like a set of "bubble topics" that should mainly be moved to other pages that deal with those topics. Another observation is that, as it stands, the importance of Jesus to Jehovah's Witnesses is masked by the fact that he's all boxed up under the "Jesus" and "Salvation" subheadings and doesn't appear anywhere else. It seems to be a "thought bubble" approach at the moment instead of being written in terms of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Mandmelon (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jeffro77
I haven't taken the time to check, but I assume your "deleted comments DON'T appear elsewhere in the article" refers to my recent deletions. I didn't say they occurred elsewhere in THIS article. If I use an encyclopedia, it's to start off an assignment usually. That means I want to be able to read the entire article/s through in their entirety so I can brainstorm for ideas. I don't need to find information more than once in that task. It's an insult to my intelligence and time restraints.
 * User_talk:Mandmelon

I have posted this comment elsewhere this morning, but I have heard of JW publications being pedagogical, and these articles are on much the same track. Please treat people like grown-ups and use links instead of "repetition for emphasis."--Mandmelon (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why aren't the big conventions in there?
Last time I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses believed that some of the book of Revelation refers to the conventions they've had.
 * User_talk:Mandmelon

It's not an overview at the moment at all, and it needs to be.--Mandmelon (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even vaguely understand what kind of timeline it is that you're talking about. Are you worried that we'll all move back to September 1997 if an event in 1928 doesn't make the grade in the description of JWs? It doesn't delete the time if you don't record an event for it.--Mandmelon (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your last response was patently stupid, though may have been an attempt at humour. You deleted the History section from the 1970s onward. Are you familiar with the concept of a timeline (i.e. a presentation of events over time) outside of science fiction?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What you "thought"
I meant that it was a provisional change in response particularly to your comments. It was just to see how the change looked and how it fared.--Mandmelon (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Mandmelon

Heading into 3RR
Jeffro,

Unless some of the editors can learn to work with others quickly, we will be heading into 3RR on the JW article quick. The haters are worse than the believers right now. Both of those POV's need to realize there is a NPOV way of presenting the information and that their efforts are drifting the article farther from that point.

I will say that although working with Mandmelon has been tough, that individual does seem to be well intentioned and is working within the rules. Other new comers on the other hand want to weasal the heck out of this article, as far as I can tell. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Fcsuper
 * Yeah, some issues with the intro are coming up right now too. I've not dealt with locking an article and arbitration, so I'll let you move to that direction if you think its needed.  I've dealt with 3RR before, but prefer not too.  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted your edit on Requests for Arbitration
When you filed your new case, you blanked about 80K worth of data from other cases. I have undone your edit, just to restore the other cases. YOu can resubmit your case. SirFozzie (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:SirFozzie/Archive_17

JW Controversies
Thank you Jeffro77 for your invitation to rebut any refusal to allow controversies into the main article. That wouldn't be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, which allows (and main purpose for existing is) for unbiased criticisms of all subjects. Please check out my recent criticisms of the Royal Society (a 350 year old scientific foundation). Conveniently moving a controversial verified FACT away from the group in which it factually belongs to, is nothing more than biased itself.
 * User_talk:Jensenium

The beauty of Wikipedia is to allow people to learn about the factual truth of any subject. I will ensure that these facts stay in the main article. Post Script: I like your style by the way, open-minded and grammatically correct. :)--Jensenium (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The site section
Do you agree that the site section is not for Wikipedia? If we add every (positive or negative) event that takes place, we can add thousands of cases. I believe that many things that happen in the articles about JWs couldn't happen in the articles of Roman Catholics or Orthodox. Imagine a whole paragraph about a complaint of someone against the Catholics. That would be ridiculous! Important issues have been discussed in academic books, articles or in encyclopaedias. As regards the copyright laws and the rest of the legal action on the part of the WBTS, I am not in position to judge because I don't live in Canada.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Vassilis78

Milton Henschel and governing body membership
I find your style of communication as infantile and needlessly abusive. Here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Attend to your own style of communication before addressing mine. Perhaps review what other editors have said about your approach, instead of just leaving them condescending stock replies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is that you follow your own advice, for a change. You are the editor who takes it upon himself to follow me around constantly characterizing my replies here as condescension. Your actions are either from over-sensitivity, ignorance or self-righteousness because I have never addressed you or anyone else here with condescension in mind and condescension is an intent; it  is not a set of words banked into any sentence.-Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently not.
 * Would you do me the favor of explaining what exactly is condescending about my reply you reference to FCSuper? As you do so, please explain how on earth you know my state of mind and/or intent better than me. I take back my earlier options. Now I think you are just plain old fashioned self-righteous--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you don't value my opinion, that would be futile. So why don't you ask FCSuper if he imagines your reply to be condescending instead. Aside from that, FCSuper's comments confirm your claim about your condescension being merely my "over-sensitivity, ignorance or self-righteousness" to be demonstrably false. Go and do something worthwhile.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't 'follow you' at all; imagining that I specifically follow your edits would be a delusion of grandeur. Discussion with you happens as a result of edits to articles relating to JWs. But discussion with you often results in condescension on your part, which has been demonstrated to not be merely a figment of my imagination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of comments
Hi Jeffro, Maybe it's just me, but I find it confusing when replies to a comment on a talk page are inserted in the middle of someone else's comment. Your replies to both Vassilis and me in the discussion about the neutrality tag are examples. In reading the thread it's not entirely clear whose comments are whose and their chronological order. I hoped to be able to cite a policy on this at Talk page guidelines but there is none. Still, is it something you could keep in mind please, possibly bolding the word "reply" and "end of reply" or something similar? All the best, LTSally (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:LTSally

My response
Jeffro77: It is gracious of you to concede where you did, but I have no need for concessions of any sort regarding your intentions or mine. I am completely disinterested in personalities and styles of communication. I am completely interested in objectivity and verifiable presentation of information. I contribute here solely to add to Wikipedia’s knowledge base; not to make friends; not to teach; not to offend.
 * User_talk:Marvin_Shilmer

Consensus building is important here, and advice to avoid needlessly putting off fellow editors is well taken. But consensus built on stroking personalities is fragile. Better consensus is constructed on academic rigor without regard for personalities, or style of communication. In my case, I assume good faith of another editor by asking questions of style and language before concluding poor intentions (should that be the case). I expect the same of other editors. That is, if you or any other editor wants to know whatever is the intention behind my choice of language all you have to do is ask, and I invite questions of me, and certainly I invite learned criticism. I am more than willing to explain my language and wade through tedious discussions designed to flush out valid information and balanced presentation. Because better consensus is built on academic rigor then I pay little if any attention to building personal alliances with fellow editors by trying to coddle personalities (not that you have asked this of me).

The sad thing between us is that I believe you have a lot to offer here. Besides the unavoidable gaffe/pitfall that every editor falls into occasionally, my observation is that generally you stay above the fray of whiney drumbeaters and hopelessly biased presentations. Both of us, I believe, have every good intention in our participation here. Though you express doubt about my objectivity regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, I appreciate you sharing your doubt with me. Were I to express my own bias related to Jehovah’s Witnesses I would say it this way: I have great affection for the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses and for quite of bit of what these people hold dear, but I believe the hierarchy, inner workings and history of the Watchtower organization deserves more of the good light of day. Whether the result speaks well or bad of anyone or anything is no matter to me. My participation here and elsewhere shows, I believe, a willingness to advocate whatever are the facts of a matter regardless of whom it pleases, either Jehovah’s Witnesses or their detractors.

Between us it is enough for me that you cease characterizing my language as condescending without first asking me to express whatever my intent behind the words is. This is how I treat others and it is how I expect to be treated. Also, as is the case with you, I do not intend to speak as a child to a person who is unlearned. I intend to speak as an adult at all times, and to assume fellow editors are honest enough to know their topic before taking it upon themselves to tinker with other editor’s hard and learned work. I am not here to teach anyone. I am here to help contribute productively to Wikipedia’s knowledge base.

Earlier you expressed a preferential result between us. Here is what I would like, and it is far more optimistic than your wish: Based on the values I deduce from your work here, it would be helpful to occasionally work collaboratively with you. Because you and I do not tend to agree for sake of agreement, and because both of us prefer objective and balanced presentation, such collaboration would be helpful to the end of improving the knowledge base. It would be a form of peer review.

I state what I do above because I see beyond the distractions between us to all the good you have to offer.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffro77: I am content. Your advice is well received. I look forward to working together.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)