User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2016

edits watchtower
Hi Jeffro:

With regards to both the number, and the frequency, of the printing of The Watchtower magazine, the points being added are hardly insignificant.

In the Dec 15, 1977 Watchtower, Watch Tower stated at page 753: "Today the Watchtower magazine has increased its printing from an initial 6,000 copies monthly in one language (English) to a semimonthly printing of 10,400,000 copies in 79 languages. Today, ever since the issue of March 1, 1939, this magazine has been entitled “The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom.”"

The volume and frequency has always been a mainstay of boasting of this magazine.

From 1939 forward, The Watchtower has been produced as a Public Edition with 32 pages in each of its 24 annual issues. (Also reprinted annually in a "Bound Volume" of 768 pages).

Beginning in 2008, The Watchtower split into a Public Edition and a Study Edition (to be studied by Jehovah's Witnesses each Sunday at a meeting in a Kingdom Hall). The 12 annual Public Editions were dated the 1st of each month, and the Study Editions were dated the 15th of each month, both issues remaining at 32 pages in length.

Beginning in January 2013, the monthly Public Edition of the Watchtower (as well as the Awake magazine) were reduced to 16 pages in length. (The Study Edition remained at 32 pages.)

Beginning in January 2016, both The Watchtower (Public Edition) and Awake magazines were changed again, this time from monthly to bi-monthly.

As noted, Watch Tower often boasted about its frequency and quantity of its mainstay magazines. For its flagship Public magazine to go from 768 pages printed per year, down to 384 pages per year, then 192 pages per year, and, beginning in 2016, down to 96 pages per year, is hardly trivial for an entry supposedly devoted to the factual history of that entry.

(Thanks for your time, all the same - I know volunteering is an often thankless task.)

Garth
 * Details such as the specific day of the month on which a magazine is issued are quite definitely trivial. The article already correctly indicates the distribution figures and number of pages, including the reduction in the number of pages (however, it is not essential that those details be included). It is also not necessary to update the distribution figures every month, and approximate round figures are entirely adequate. Wikipedia is not interested in "boasting" that typically appears in primary sources. If you think the above details are not trivial, please cite secondary sources. In the absence of reliable sources, it is also not suitable for the article to suggest if or how the reduction in pages may be 'significant', as that would constitute original research. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro, You may want to update "Study Edition" view of WT because it has really changed this year, 2016. I was not sure how to change picture. Juleon11
 * The masthead has remained the same, so I don't see it as particularly urgent. I'll replace the image some time in the next few weeks as time permits if no one else does it in the meantime.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing
Hello Jeffro77, I am a French contributor, and I am currently getting concerned about the cleaning of some articles concerning the anthroposophy and its practical uses. I signaled here the Civil POV pushing ongoing on Waldorf education, where no trace of criticism is mentionned, sectarism, etc. This is a severe corruption of the encyclopedia, but I can't do much as a French-speaker. I hope you will be able to inform the appropriate projects of this issue. Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be involved in an edit war at that article, in which I do not want to get involved. I don't have any special expertise about Steiner schools, and I do not have time to research the subject to meaningfully assess the articles. Broadly speaking, it is not essential for articles to contain a specific Criticism section, even if controversy exists, though they may be warranted where there are notable controversies reported in secondary sources that cannot be given adequate coverage in other sections. This may or may not be the case for the article in question, which should be a topic of discussion at the article's Talk page, with reference to suitable secondary sources.
 * Your ability to use English seems more than adequate, although some of your comments ("I am not expecting any answer from you. ... AGF, kiss my ass") may call into question your desire to resolve disputes.
 * Also, when starting sections at pages such as the 'Help desk' or 'Village pump', you might get more or better responses if you use a more specific section name such as "Neutrality of Waldorf/Steiner school articles" rather than just "Neutrality issue". Also, posting on multiple noticeboard pages could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, but you may have noticed that I am not really used to your community talk pages. You are right, I was not trying to resolve disputes, as I have no time neither to debate on this article, moreover in a foreign language. My only will was to find some contributors able to balance the neutrality of the article (a Criticism section is mentionned as the easiest/fastest way to do so, but I agree that such content has to be developped along the whole text). Well, time will maybe help. :/ Cheers, Totodu74 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

JWs and the Stake
Hello Jeffro77. I asked a question about this topic last year, but there wasn't a response from you. Given that you are the resident Jehovah's Witnesses expert, I want to ask you: why do the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to teach that Jesus was executed on an upright stake as opposed to a cross, even though early Christian writers (pre-Constantine even) at the very least write that Jesus was executed on something other than a crux simplex (i.e. he was executed on an instrument with a crossbeam of some kind), and certain Bible verses (notably one on Thomas wanting to see the nails on Jesus' hands, and another saying that Jesus will stretch out his arms when he dies) also suggest that Jesus was executed on a cross? Reading on material on the ex-JW subreddit on Reddit, there is a theory that this was part of the platform (for lack of a better word) of Joseph Rutherford in order to "stomp out paganism" in Christianity (apparently this is the same reason why don't celebrate birthdays or holidays), and to distinguish themselves from the various splinter Bible study groups which were common at the time, but is this really the case, or are there other reasons to the doctrine as well? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that it makes them distinctive. This is, of course, an oversimplification. They do have a longer answer, which they feel justifies their position. See Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read that article and it does not specifically mention why they continue to defend the doctrine despite all the evidence to the contrary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of additional response you're expecting from me beyond what has already been provided. Basically, they believe it because it is what they are told to believe. The 'official' reason is that the 'cross' is regarded as 'pagan' (however, a great deal of even the core Christian 'story' has 'pagan' origins). As far as I'm aware, distinctiveness of the belief is the underlying motivation. I'm not interested in discussing it further.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, why do they continue to believe in the 607 B.C.E. doctrine even though this date has no support outside of Watchtower scholarship and is believed to be inaccurate by scholars? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually worse than the date merely not being supported by secular sources. Their doctrine about 607 BCE is based on their assertion that the Jews were exiled to Babylon for 70 years; however, the Bible never mentions an exile of 70 years, instead stating that all the nations would serve Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11), and that serving Babylon willingly was the way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-11), and that after 70 years, Babylon's king would be called to account (Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5:26-31). Additionally, the Bible states that attention would be given to the Jews' return only after 70 years were fulfilled. The JW view is that 70 years ended only once Jews arrived in Judea. However, it would be quite nonsensical to turn attention to their return after 70 years if 70 years ended only once they were already home (Jeremiah 29:10). Further, not only is their starting point for the period incorrect, but the end year they assert (537 BCE) is also wrong, as that is the year temple reconstruction began, and the Jews arrived in Judea the previous year.
 * The real reason JWs continue to cling to this untenable year is that their eschatological beliefs are inextricably tied to it. They believe a special period of 2,520 years ran from 607 BCE until 1914. (This is based on their incorrect belief that the 'apponted times of the nations' at Luke 21:24 referred to that period, however the original of that verse indicates a period that had not yet begun in Jesus' time, and Revelation 11:2 associates the term with a period of 3.5 years, not 2520 years.) JWs are unable to abandon their usage of the incorrect dates unless/until they come up with a novel way to also abandon their central end-times beliefs involving 1914 whilst not triggering a signifcant reduction of membership.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly aware that their doctrines on Armageddon etc. are very much tied to 607 B.C.E., but what I don't get is why they don't simply adjust their doctrines to fit the scholarly 587 B.C.E. date (i.e. change 1914 to 1934 or something like that). Given that they change doctrines all the time as manifestation of their doctrine on "new light", I'm surprised they haven't done this, it would not be too difficult to do, and if anything it would cause less contradictions rather than more. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They say that Charles Taze Russell made predictions about 1914. Although what Russell said about 1914 is not remotely similar to anything that actually happened in 1914, they are too invested in that year because they have for many years focussed on the fact that something significant happened in that year. Hence, it is not a simple matter to change their selection of that year.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation Museum
The Category:Creationist museums in the United States has been removed from Category:Pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct. As already stated, Category:Creationist museums in the United States is already a subcategory of Category:Creationist museums, which is a subcategory of Category:Creation science, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The Exodus
Thanks, that was a Til Eulenspiegel sock - with probably the mildest attack he's made on me this year, others have had to be rev/del'd or even suppressed (not of course by me)/ Doug Weller  talk 11:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

World Angel Wrestling Federation
Fair enough. Having wrestled with god is way cooler, but as you say, out of scope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Stories about god are indeed really cool. Especially Oolon Colluphid's Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Never managed to find those titles, or any Jynnan tonnyx for that matter. But I read in Don't know much about the Bible : everything you need to know about the Good Book but never learned that Moses also had an interesting meeting with god. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
I just never said it before I think, so I'm saying it now: thanks for your persistent work on various sensitive articles to prevent vandalism and censorship, I think you've been doing an awesome job for years. And happy holidays. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since unregistered users cannot modify user pages, I could not add it, but if you accept it, I award the following, which you can move:


 * Thanks. :) -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)