Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 2

Please comment on the following
Please take a look at the following thread: and see if you want to make a comment. Thanks. 66.167.139.86 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust

About Editing Guidelines (1)
I have some questions. I think better quality articles here can be produced without introducing a biasedness in any direction, but rather, a more accurate view of the religion. Why are scriptural references discouraged? I think it would difuse many arguments & make JW's seem less like they're "brainwashed" when it comes to showing why we believe something. And why does this place use the term "interpretation" when it probably makes more sense to use the term "understanding"? The word "interpretation" has come to have a very negative connotation when it comes to religion, and "understanding" reveals a more reasonable attitude towards scriptures that is less dogmatic and more flexible. Historically, Jehovah's Witnesses have been flexible and adjusted their beliefs whenever they realized they'd misunderstood what the Bible said (The dogmatic people then leave the religion and complain about past misunderstandings). Religions following interpretations don't tend to adjust their beliefs. Plus, how many times have we even heard circuit overseers and elders say "the current understanding is..."? It might sound like semantics, but there is a small but significant difference between the two words.

Unless I misunderstand something, the purpose of this collection of pages is to educate the world about Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way. How else can we do it but to let them know that what we believe comes from the Bible and not from men. Half of these pages talk about our beliefs almost like it's the Governing Body thinking for God and thinking for us. That's not the case, is it? Although, that is what apostates like to convince people.--Ando por Fe 06:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Its weaker from a verifiability POV to use scriptures instead of Watchtower references. After all, Jehovah's Witnesses believe what they do because of what they learn from Watchtower articles explaining the Bible, not simply by reading the Bible themselves and coming to any conclusion they feel like. Jehovah's Witnesses typically pride themselves on their unity through the "faithful and discreet slave". I agree with "understand", i think its generally better however not to use the exact phrase every time to explain something, so using a variety of words to explain the relationship between a belief and a scripture seems advised. These are guidelines after all, not hard and fast rules.


 * Though "interpretation" might be a bit loaded. I wouldn't agree its being unwieldy so. The question of have Jehovah's Witnesses been flexible is one that be presented with verifiable references in a NPOV way.


 * Btw, earlier you mentioned the history page. I added it entirely as a stub, and it desperately needs help and love. Please feel free to pull up your sleeves and tackle this page as you'd like. Just remember to reference stuff! Happy editing. :) joshbuddy 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good place to mention that I am really pleased with what has happened in the past year on this project. It is very commendable.  I hope you can appreciate it, Andoporfe (I walk by faith).  Welcome to the project. Tom Haws 04:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to take the opportunity in the coming months to read some of the articles and give an opinion. Tom Haws 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and am still learning the policies and basics. However, I tend to agree with Ando por Fe. The Bible is the basis for our belief.  The Watchtower et al provides explanation and clarification but the Bible is the basis.  Likely there should be a balance between references from both the Bible and CCJW publications. Critics would, I'm sure, prefer to see only CCJW references rather than God's Word.    Also, I'm willing to assist with some editing but my time (like most of us) is limited due to a heavy workload elsewhere. 1GoodNews 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ando por Fe and 1GoodNews, all organised religions form their beliefs from a combination of scripture (the Bible in the case of JWs) and an official interpretation as given by an authoritative person or body (the F&DS, in the case of JWs). Presenting only the scripture implies that a religion's interpretation is the only, or the correct one, which is inappropriate for WP. I hope you see the reasoning behind this guideline, which is, after all, only a guideline. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

About Editing Guidelines (2)
Sorry folks, but I'm not happy about the present 'Editing Guidelines': Guideline 1. says "State, "The Watchtower says..." rather than, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe...". This avoids difficulties in different interpretations of what the WT is saying; the WT statement can be interpreted by the reader, rather than by editors."

To say "The Watchtower says" implies that The Watchtower is the arbiter of, and basis for, the beliefs of JWs. However, is not the Watchtower simply an instrument of JWs for spreading/sharing their beliefs, sharing them with each other and to the wider world? Surely we can take it 'as read' that the WT, and other official publications of JWs, all plainly state the beliefs of JWs? It is the responsibility of editors, when providing encyclopedic information, to ensure that the wording of their entries accurately reflect the beliefs and practises of the religion being written about. To this end, WT publications are an excellent source of information. In fact WT publications would be the only source of information worth researching if we want to know the beliefs of JWs.
 * See your point, but the problem then is that Jehovah's Witnesses (individuals) receive doctrine from Jehovah's Witnesses (organisation).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is for these reasons and those expressed in my opening post that I feel that Editing Guideline 1 is too prescriptive and could/should be improved. Unfortunately, however, I regret that I have only been able to indicate a potential problem area, and have not been able to offer a possible solution.--JW-somewhere (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, thaat implication isn't specifically made. Unfortunately, as the Watchtower is one of the major sources of information, it gets cited a lot. That doesn't mean that it's the final word. Also, most of our direct references in wikipedia tend to follow that format. Also, if it is linked to at least once per article, it will hopefully be clear that the link will verify it is only one organ of the JWs. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * REPLY 1
 * I see your point too. I think this matter is a challenge for editors. As an example of my concerns, compare, for example, Wiki 'Roman Catholic Church'. Under 'beliefs' it does not say "The Pope's encyclical says..", it says "Catholics believe....." followed by references to source material or links. The editing style in Wiki R.C.Ch. is varied, e.g. "Following Jesus admonition to ...whatever, (+scripture quotation) Catholics (do whatever...)." Not "The Pope says...", or "The Catechism says....". But rather, the article states the beliefs of the adherents of the RCCh and then cites (cites, not quotes) relevant portions of the source. Occasionally it quotes directly from the source, but generally the article is written using the (NPOV) wording of the editor, not by quoting verbatim from source material.
 * Part of the problem there is that many of the traditions are of dubious provenance, so it's hard to say exactly what their origins are. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of belief, many people who have become JWs have done so because they already hold certain bible beliefs, and they are subsequently extremely pleased to find a group of people, the JWs, who also hold to the same tenets and uphold the same standards as they do.

Coming back to the WT. Is it really possible that there could be "different interpretations of what the WT is saying.."? I've been reading WT publications for over 35 years, and, as to beliefs and practices, have never had any difficulty in understanding the doctrines and points being made, nor have any of my fellow worshippers.
 * Anything is possible, particularly if one is primarily interested in finding a basis for their own, sometimes unusual, ideas, and we unfortunately have many editors who engage in that sort of behavior regarding any number of subjects, not just religious ones. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And why should we cite the WT as the authority for our beliefs? For example, I know the WT says the Bible is God's Word, but I don't believe that the Bible is God's word because the WT says so! I believe the Bible is God's Word because (a) the bible itself provides me convincing evidence that it is, and (b) the Bible itself says that it is God's Word! So, when listing and expounding on our beliefs, surely Bible citations are entirely appropriate.
 * Do you believe that the tree in Daniel chapter 4 (an arbitrary example) represents gentile rule merely because the bible says so? There are many JW interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the bible whose authority can only be cited as that of the Watchtower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffro.Thanks for comment. See 'Reply 2' below.--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On this matter of bible quotations, I believe that there is no need to make a point of using only the wording of the NWT. After all, all bibles teach the same basic truths. I appreciate that there are some differences between versions, but, in most cases, none of these make any difference as to the message of the scriptures. In the few places where there appears to be significant variances between what JWs believe and what other bibles say, then we could make a point of explaining how we have come to our conclusions, conclusions which may differ from that of other religious groups.
 * The guidelines don't actually say what you say they do. They say that quotes from the JW bible should be where reasonable and possible. This makes sense because (1) other versions might not say the same thing and (2) it makes sense to quote the official source of that church, in this case their translation. This isn't saying that other translations can't be used, just that there is an advantage to using the NWT. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So, whilst I appreciate the motive for guideline No.1, I think it has been poorly conceived.

Guideline No 2. says,"Use the newest available reference when stating what JWs currently believe."

First of all, this seems to contradict what Guideline 1 says, i.e. that editors should NOT say, 'JWs believe..'

Secondly, it would be hoped that all references to the beliefs of JWs accurately reflect...what they believe! It goes without saying that the encyclopedic entry will contain current, up-to-date information. The Catholic Church has significantly changed it's views on certain matters over the years. But we don't read 'Roman Catholics currently believe..."! So, my point is, the guideline should be re-worded, perhaps by some admonition to editors, to simply remind them to ensure that they are not publishing information that is 'out of date'. To any non-JW who is reading this, I would like to state that, yes, JWs HAVE had to review their understanding of various scriptures from time to time (Prov 4:18?). Often, if you are a reader of WT publications, you will notice that they might say 'it would seem that..' on certain points. If, later, further consideration leads to a different viewpoint, JWs publish this revision in their literature, making clear the reasons why a modification or change would seem more appropriate. But 'changes' are not made lightly, without long and careful consideration of the matter. In some cases, we 'just don't know' how a certain scripture was intended to be understood. Often, in time, the matter becomes clearer. But if it doesn't, there is nothing more to add, if we don't know, we don't know! JWs are not, and do not claim to be, 'inspired prophets' like those of Bible times. Much of our research is done by keeping up-to-date with what other (non-JW) bible scholars have determined. If the case in point has merit, the brothers will make their own extensive enquiries, and come to a common understanding. If an 'understanding' needs to be revised as a result of this prayerful consideration of 'new' information, their new findings are circulated together with deatials of all references and reasonings.
 * The purpose of the statement about using the most recent sources is I believe to indicate that older, now perhaps discredited statements, should not be included as being what is necessarily believed today. Certainly, I would agree that there's no particular need to change a quote from a book two months old with another quote one week old, but the basically reasoning above is still valid. That doesn't mean the phrasing couldn't be changed a little, though. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A further point I would like to make is that, already JWs produce extensive, and well founded, information of their beliefs. The information is available on the internet and in their publications, freely available to all. If any readers require further clarification, JWs will happily call and discuss one-to-one any bible matter the genuine enquirer wishes to raise. The meetings of JWs are also quite free and open to the public. No-one need to be in any doubt as to what JWs believe and why. This being so, the need to publish extensive information on this Wiki website is quite un-necessary.
 * There is no need to put anything here, including such central articles as England. However, there are regular questions from people regarding the accuracy of "current" statements from any body as to whether they are denying earlier statements. Being able to provide what is, hopefully, regarded as neutral, outside comment is basically what this site is built on. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should people only consult Catholic sources about Catholic beliefs, therefore making all other sources about the Catholic Church (including JW views thereof) unnecessary? How about AlQaeda? Obviously consulting only one organisation about that organisation's beliefs will present a glowing biased viewpoint of that organisation. Such reasoning is not only incorrect, but also dangerous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro. I appreciate your concerns. See Reply 3 (to be written soon!)--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Yes, have guidelines. Perhaps a JW who has had experience and been trained in academic writing might like, with all due respect to the editor(s) who composed the ones we currently have, to consider rewriting the guidelines, taking into account the points to which I have drawn attention. Regards --JW-somewhere (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that guidelines are not intended to be absolute. The guidelines really only exist to help ensure that the articles are well written. There can be and always are cases in wikipedia when guidelines aren't followed for some good reason. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

REPLY 2.

Jeffro.I appreciate your comment and I see your point about WT references. Yes, of course, WT references are necessary, or more specifically, references to publications by Jehovah’s Witnesses (via WTB&TS) are essential on certain beliefs. But not all beliefs require a WTBTS reference. To expand:-

1. The beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses fall, for the purpose of this discussion, into, say, three different types:-

(i) beliefs which are commonly held beliefs, i.e. that are common to and widely held by all/most Christian believers who accept the bible as the word of God. (ii) beliefs that derive from an understanding of scripture that differs from ‘mainstream’ Christianity, but which nevertheless, can be clearly and simply substantiated by reference to specific scriptures and related scriptures. Obviously these understandings will differ from those of some other faiths, each of which may have come to different understandings of the doctrine, depending on their view of the inter-relationships (or not!) of various scriptures, and

(iii) beliefs that are extrapolations/implications derived from type (i) and type (ii) beliefs.

2. Every faith can be described as a belief system. JWs are no different. Therefore, recognising this belief system enables an editor to see which beliefs:- (a) for type (i), can be communicated simply, by statement and reference, or (b) for type (ii), need more explanation, supported by internal and external references, or (c) for type (iii), that are more complicated, and can only be satisfactorily explained by extensive exegesis.
 * Agree on types (i) and (ii). Type (iii) beliefs should use JW references, but some would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and many would be beyond the scope of the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Beliefs in this latter category are the most difficult to deal with within the scope of an entry in an encyclopaedia. The beliefs of the RCCh about Mary, for example, are summarised in one paragraph, but with no or hardly any explanation for the position of the RCCh on this doctrine. There are referenced words, but most of these provide no further enlightenment. There are also one or two referenced key words. These link to expanded explanations, elsewhere in Wiki, which give a more in-depth coverage of the subject.


 * Indeed. Those kind of topics are the most difficult to present subjectively because they are intrinsically POV, and almost always unproven, and usually unprovable (such as many of the RCCh beliefs about Mary).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

4. As the Wiki article RCCh is only a synopsis of Catholic belief, some (more complicated?) subjects are not even mentioned. e.g. Papal Infallibility. There is not even any direct ‘See Also’ link from the main article to this subject as far as I can see (perhaps I should add one!). In the same way, an article about JWs beliefs should be succinct and appropriately substantiated, and ‘deeper’ subjects should be dealt with outside the main article, if need be.


 * The amount of data on the Roman Catholic Church in wikipedia is such that the main article can only present the essential points. Also, for what little it's worth, as a RCC myself, I know that papal infallibility has only ever been exorcised in a real sense twice. On that basis, it is far from being a central issue, and can reasonably be placed in a subarticle. The same thing could be done with the JWs, if the amount of content ever approached that of the RCC. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

5.1 Interestingly the RCCh article makes extensive use of references to literature where the reader can verify, or do their own research on, more complicated matters. The RCCh footnotes have links to mainly Catholic sources, but also to scriptures, to lists of booksellers for the book referred to, or to Google’s ISBN search engine.

On ‘complicated’ doctrine, the RCCh article(s) refer the reader to a number of books which discuss the matter in question. Similarly the Wiki JW page could, perhaps, have extensive referenced words, and extensive footnotes showing: scriptures; references/links to the WTBTs website pages; JWs publications, and external sources.

5.2 On many Catholic practices the RCCh just relates what Catholics do, not why they do them. I think JWs would not want to emulate this editing form of presentation.
 * The RCC article is only at GA, so it isn't the best representative anyway, as it itself has a few problems keeping it from FA level. Also, it's documented history is a lot longer. And, again, there are numerous subarticles about the RCC which go into greater detail on the subjects, which could be done here as well if the amount of content ever got to that level. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be more objective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

6.1 So different beliefs require different presentations. Returning now to the tree of Daniel 4. Verse 22 onwards of that chapter tells us what/who the tree represents. This part is easy, because we have the ‘dream tree’, and the ‘interpretation’ in the same chapter. This is inarguable. But what was the prophetic fulfilment of that dream? That’s another matter which would need more research. Having established the historic fulfilment, are there any further implications? Are there any scriptural lessons to be learnt from the matter? And does the prophecy have more than one fulfilment, e.g. a minor fulfilment and a major fulfilment? If so, what and how and when and who etc etc? Does the dream provide any prophetic information about the Kingdom of God or about the Kingdom of the Messiah? Now we see that such matters require extensive exegesis which, to me, would seem to be outside the scope of a main article about JWs beliefs. Given that many different bible scholars have studied these verses over the years, and each, no doubt have made different extrapolations and come to different conclusions, then perhaps a separate Wiki article on Nebuchadnezzar’s (Nebuchadnezzar II) dream tree would be appropriate. There isn’t one. Perhaps you’d like to start one, as a sub-page to the Wiki article about this King? You could include a summary of the explanation given on the ‘TeachingHearts’ website (not JWs),. In due course, JWs may wish to add their particular view and to include suitable citations and cross-references.


 * It was an arbitrary example to demonstrate that "There are many JW interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the bible whose authority can only be cited as that of the Watchtower Society." The question, "But what was the prophetic fulfilment of that dream?" also demonstrates that point, as there is nothing in the bible account to indicate - or even imply - that there was any prophetic fulfillment beyond what is explicitly stated. Several of the other questions are also assumptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

7.1 Taking your up your arbitrary example of the tree of Daniel 4, I think you will agree that the matter of Bible prophecy is a deep subject. There are various ways of studying this subject, as you will be aware. How far should Wiki go in highlighting the different understandings of all the numerous prophecies found in the Bible? Should it even start the task? If people want to know, would Wiki be the best starting point, or would the enquirer be better advised to do their own research and/or to avail themselves of the abundance of literature and bible study assistance provided by various religious groups?


 * It would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia to exhaustively analyse all interpretations of all biblical prophecies. However, certain information therefrom is needed where it is central to explaining a religion's fundamental doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agreed. There have been so many different interpretations of so many different scriptures and other sources over the years that any attempt to do so at this early date, when even the main articles on most of the books of the Bible are still unimpressive, that any attempt to elaborate such interpretations at length would almost certainly wind up violating the official policy of [{WP:Undue weight]] by laying too much emphasis on a few interpretations. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

7.2 Summary. Different beliefs require different treatment. An encyclopaedia editor must exercise discernment and discretion, especially when dealing with religion and other ‘matters of the heart’.--JW-somewhere (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, discernment can be seen as being functionally equivalent to POV by anyone other than the "discerner" himself, and thus be seen to violate policy. Also, in all honesty, there is no reason for "discretion" per se, unless what is being discussed is a less than creditable source. Any verifiable information from reliable sources can be included. However, I think you would agree that the main purpose at this point would be to expand and improve the most central articles, rather than creating a large number of less essential articles. In time, that will certainly change. Also, given the comparatively few number of active editors this project has, it would be unreasonable to expect content regarding it to be as thorough as content regarding RCs, because of the far greater number of editors interested and active in that subject. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Navigational Template
A new template is under development in order to guide readers through the large number of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Please feel free to contribute / add / edit or suggest any changes. Many Thanks - Lucille S 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned participants
I've noted that the users Tommstein and Central have been idefinitely blocked on the list of participants. I propose simply removing their names from the list, but did not want to do so arbitrarily without concensus. - CobaltBlueTony 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think being up to date on who is actively involved is a good idea. Since those two are not allowed to be involved anymore, removal is a good idea.  Duffer 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Better to keep struck through to serve as indicator IMO, as I see these user's comments in plenty of discussion pages? Joseph C 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge unnecessary
Merging the doctrines and practices into one article is unnecessary, and makes the resultant article too long. BenC7 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible study
I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article
Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses - to focus on self-evident, factual presentations of the critics and their declared objectives.

Thoughts? - CobaltBlueTony 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lucille's statement that the "Family Integrity & Freedom of Mind" section (since deleted) which I contributed to "Controversies..." filled a glaring vacancy. The objection most frequently cited by critics of Jehovah's Witnesses deserves more than two lines; therefore, should be restored. It seems logical to me that it should be on the "Controversies..." page, since there is little difference between controversy and criticism; that is, controversy exists because critics speak up. Therefore it may be a case of splitting hairs to create a seperate page.


 * It should also be noted that where the use of cult mind control is proposed, "self-evident presentations" are insufficient, rather presentations must be made in such a way as to first disclose to the average reader what cult mind control is, then why critics state that it is being employed in a certain context. If "self-evident presentations" were sufficient, cult mind control would not be possible. According to authors such as Lifton, Singer, Hassan, Goldhammer, and others, cult mind control is real. Therefore "self-evident presentations" (that is, those that do not include disclosure of the nature of complex dynamics) are not sufficient. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, question?
Are you guys/gals sure a bunch of wikipedia pages on Jehovahs Witnesses is really...okay? O_o I mean, have you spoken to others about it yet? From what ive seen, most things I read about Witnesses on the net are either too negative or too postive, and people tend to argue alot and it just breaks my heart D: In my opinion Witnesses shouldnt get so involved on the internet, but thats just my opinion. But im not arguing, just a kid whose wonder about this, thats all :/


 * An online encyclopedia is here for people who want to get information on a certain topic. Wikipedia has policies that state how the article needs to be written, for example that it must represent a neutral point of view. I'm not sure what you mean by "speaking to others" about it... Not all of the people who are editing the JW pages are JWs. BenC7 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Not all of the people who are editing the JW pages are JWs." ...Yikes o_o Okay than, thanks for your response.


 * Jehovah's Witnesses, approximately 6 million in number, live in almost every land on this earth. They certainly deserve to be represented in Wikipedia articles. Those of us who engage in writing articles about this religion are, undoubtedly, biased in one way or another. Nevertheless, Wikipedia guidelines require that we edit from a neutral point of view; that is, we may quote published sources, regardless of the veracity of such sources. Jehovah's Witnesses have many supporters and many detractors; the arguable issues should be discussed only in terms of published sources. --RogerK 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Request
Jehovahs Witness publications insist that everything published is verifiable through the scriptures. They also insist their constituents continually test this to see if they are in "the truth". I did some of what I consider original research in order to comply with the Jehovah Witnesses scriptural challenge to continue testing. I have later found that others do existwho are equally convinced as I am about my personal discovery. I am convinced that what I discerned through my scriptural inquiry will eventually become common knowledge as it reveals the man of lawlessness. I am equally convinced that it may not fit the Wikiproject editing guidelines.

So here is my request:

Would a responsible and capable wiki editor, a Baruch please adjust what I have written in the following so that it complies:

The man of lawlessness revealed

Thanks


 * What you have written is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I would suggest that you speak with a counsellor. BenC7 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Death of Jesus Article - Witness View
There has been a series of articles started on the subject of the Death of Jesus. There is a dedicated section for Jehovah's Witness belief on this event namely in denial of the cross. Currently the srticle has some dodgy references, mainly sources that are critical of beliefs used for defining JW doctrine on the cross??!! Can some of you help fix this?? Thanx Jamie 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I have founded some new categories, which I think would be very fit and helpful for all. The way of categorizing the articles needed some tidy-up. I believe that the main category is to be kept short. So it is done in other topics that comprices many articles. Summer Song 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)