Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 4

Mediation Cabal case
Following a request at Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:
 * user:Cfrito
 * user:Vassilis78
 * user:Jeffro77
 * user:Marvin Shilmer
 * WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * May I _ _ _ be a member of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding project banner
I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing ChristianityWikiProject to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the WikiProject Australia does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Kingdom Ministry
Plz create Our Kingdom Ministry. This article in other languages: Alexander Moritz (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * de:Unser Königreichsdienst
 * pl:Nasza Służba Królestwa
 * ru:Наше царственное служение

However, I note that some countries have produced a brief article about the OKS in their respective country's Wiki. If we could have an English translation of these articles, those involved in the UK JWs project could consider whether or not we would like to emulate or respectfully refrain. Regards--JW-somewhere (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think an article entitled 'Our Kingdom Ministry' should be created. OKS is an 'in-house' publication printed by JW's exclusively for JWs. It is simply an outline of the JWs ministry training program. It is not distributed to the public. It is of no use or benefit to the general public, except, perhaps, to critics of JWs who like to read something bad into all that JWs say and do. The subject 'Our Kingdom Ministry' is of no interest at all to the world at large. So let's not create an encyclopedic article about it!
 * I tend to think that, if the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, there's no reason the content, possibly as a separate article, shouldn't be created. Evidently, it does meet notability criteria, so something could/should probably be added about the subject somewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John. Thank you for your views. Having read the Notability guidelines, I'm not sure that Our Kingdom Ministry actually meets the criteria. The fact that other language editions of Google have articles about OKS does not establish a precedent. Do foreign language 'Wikis' have identical policies and guidelines as the English edition? Given that policies and guidelines evolve in each country, I doubt that a simultaneous translation of these policies is made available to foreign language Wiki editors.

Can anyone else add to this 'editorial' discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of a separate article about the JWs internal 'newsletter', the OKS? Your views please. --JW-somewhere (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
I think this project is POV. I think this project based on critics view about Jehovah's Witnesses. For example:
 * This project recomended Watchtower instead of Jehovah's Witnesses as religious group, but this disrespect on perpose that Watch Tower is one of religious corporation of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is not used as religious corporation in some countries, like Russia and East Europian.


 * This project forbits Biblical quatations and recomend to quate it as New World Translation. I think this based on critics view that Jehovah's Witnesses doctorine only stand on NWT. I think JW doctorine don't.


 * Forthermore, why can critics use Biblical quatations to express thir views and JWs not? I think this is unfair.

125.193.23.145 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the above is entirely accurate. Certainly, for the purposes of the JW's, quoting the NWT makes sense, considering that is, basically, more or less, their "official" version, and so it would make sense to quote that version in an article about the JW or in presenting their view of religious matters. It is however true that the JWs do not at this point have a "global director", like the Roman Catholics have the Pope, and that the Russian JWs probably do consider themselves as "full" JWs, even if not as "recognized" ones. The same thing can be said for several Americans who count themselves as "Catholics", like the American Catholic Church. I do agree that the article could stand improvement in some areas, and that the project can also bear new members. Certainly, content on the "separated" "unofficial" members overseas would be welcome, if you can provide reliable sources for that information. And, clearly, anyone in wikipedia is "allowed" to write however they see fit, provided they follow extant rules. Also, please note that quoting the Watchtower is an "Editing Guideline", emphasis on guideline, and actually conforms to wikipedia policy in citing the specific sources used as per WP:CITE. Your statement that the project "Forbids" other sources is not substantiated by the text. It would clearly be inaccurate to say "JWs say ..." unless it could be proven every JW who ever addressed the subject said that. Naming a published sourcr of statements as the source is much less contentious. Clearly, there are examples of individuals who might claim to be JWs who disagree with some JW teachings. Such people exist in every faith. However, unless it can be shown that their beliefs are themselves inherently notable, there's no good reason to say that it should be presented. If you can provide sources to verify your contentions that the beliefs of the JWs are based on things other than the Watchtower and those publications upon which it is based, and can verify that with reliable sources, I believe that there would then be just cause to discuss changing the content of the project page, and maybe several articles as well. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what I say. Jehovah's Witnesses in Rusia and East European Countries are not separeted from other members in other area. It is what I say that Watch Tower Bible and Tract Socity is not used among Rosian and East European Witnesses. I mean Watch Tower Society is registerd in many countries, but not in some countries. Furthermore, Watch Tower is not religious group name of Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean Watch Tower is only one of legal organizations Jehovah's Witnesses uses. Their religious group name is "Jehovah's Witnesses", not "Watch Tower Society". Then Wikipedia should say "Jehovah's Witnesses say..." instead of "Watch Tower Society say...". If you think about former-Witnesses, I should say they are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and that they infringe of their trademark. 125.193.23.145 (talk)
 * If the published source is the Watchtower, then it would be most appropriate to say that ""The Watchtower says..." because that is the source being used. In this case, what is being referred to isn't "Jehovah's Witnesses", which is at best a difficult to defend and define term in this sense, but the name of the specific source being used. Clearly, if some other source were being used, then it would make no sense whatsoever to say "The Watchtower says..." But, in those instances when that is the source, it makes sense to point out the source directly. And the fact that the Watchtower is, to a degree, one of the official spokesmen of the JWs gives it some legitimacy. One could argue that maybe "The Watchtower, an official agency of the JWs, says ..." but that would basically be redundant phrasing, because I think most people familiar with the JWs will know of the Watchtower's status. This is not saying other sources couldn't be used as well, but we always recommend identifying the specific source as clearly as possible. Regarding copyright infringement by "departed" Witnesses, that's not a question I think we would necessarily be concerned with, and is at best a minor one anyway. We might describe them as schismatic or something similar, but if a reliable source identified them as a separatist JW movement, then we could and probably should as well. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations
Edit dispute at Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. User:GermanWriter insists it is not relevant that JW members were never informed of UN affiliation. Other editors please comment on Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators for the Christianity projects
I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

removing
I was wondering if it would be possible to have the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement removed from this list of article-we prefer not to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.25.127 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator?
It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion required at Controversies article
There is an edit dispute between Cmmmm and me at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Other editors are required to contribute to the issue before I elevate it to the mediation process.

See Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Jehovah's Witnesses
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet
For several reasons, I believe Tre2 to be a sockpuppet of Cmmmm. The first reason was for Tre2 supporting Cmmmm in an edit dispute without offering any explanation of why. A comparison of the user pages of the two strongly suggests them to be the same account, with strong correlations on Mormonism, references to 'no personal attacks', and a list of "the only people" who support him on Wikipedia. Both accounts have worked on several articles in common, particularly relating to Mormonism, Pope Benedict XVI, and the JW Controversies article. Both have posted exactly the same 'race' section in the JW controversies article at different times. Both accounts have a history of adding biased information about 'race' to the JW controversies article. Both have frequently used the tag 'reverting to unbiased version' when reverting the race article. The suspected sockpuppet has been reported to be checked by an admin.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User Rfc created
I have made a Request for Comment regarding User:Marvin Shilmer. Editors who either agree or disagree with the statements made are invited to comment. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Legal instruments"
Please do not refer to corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses as "legal instruments". A legal instrument is a document, not a corporation. JW usage of "legal instrument" is jargon.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam
I left a question at talk:Adam (Bible); if anyone here can help, it would be appreciated. --Trovatore (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)