![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Each bullet point in this section was formerly a section. The only change was to group them together and use "* " to replace the first "==" which had made each a section. No text was deleted; no signature was deleted. Many of the former sections were either empty or unsigned.-- AuthorityTam ( talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of facts that can be put on this page that Jehovah's Witnesses don't seem to want us or the public (the ones who haven't been poisoned yet) to see. This article is no where near done.
I think it is important to get a group of people to moderate this page. Ideally, the moderation team should contain members of the JW and non-JW communities. My concern, however, is to find JW members reasonable enough to approach the article from all point-of-views.
-- Bart weisser 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has been mentioned about the parts of the bible that rutherford changed, there are a lot of passages that he claimed were "errors". it also needs to be mentioned that there are a lot of controversies over these changes to the bible.
I understand that Judge Rutherford wrote a sypathetic letter or a declaration of facts to the German Nazis in 1933. Should some mention of this and a link to the declaration itself be included in the article? 10 February 2007
Why hasn't Rutherford's death been mentioned? I can understand the complete embaressment to Jehovah's Witnesses because he died by means of excessive alcohol (which contradicts his "liquor is of satan"), but that doesn't mean it should be missed out, this article is currently biased.
May I also add that his predictions are not mentioned.
Please, this article is weak.Such as told up, this man was a drunk.He was also linked to freemasonry , a supporter of many quacks such Albert Abrams, an eugenicist, a racist and many other terrible failures.I think that this article didn't showed even 10% of sins of this bad man.About the politic of the watchtower under nazism in Germany, also there's nothing.Until 1940 this man and his watchtower society, were suporters of eugenic sterilization.Also, he told that any follower of watchtower couldn't be vaccinated. Agre22 ( talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22
The site http://www.seanet.com/~raines/homicide.html has a short text, about the support given to eugenics, by this protestant leader.The watchtower gave many support to eugenics, racism and racial segregation, during this times.This was the general rule, among all american protestant denominations. Agre22 ( talk) 14:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)agre22
We need a source for such a claim. Tony Wills, in his A People For His Name, claims Rutherford was born to baptist parents but "had not taken to religion in his youth". He adds (p.131): "Rutherford, although he looked down on the Churches, had never become doubtful of God's existence. The orderliness of the universe and the existence of life proved to him that there was a higher intelligence." Only one of those claims can be correct. What is the source of the claim that he had been an atheist when he bought Russell's books? LTSally ( talk) 10:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Comments where it would not hazve been seen. Astronaut ( talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
By all means, lets have a discussion. Only I'm not sure I would actually find anyone reasonable to have a discussion with. Perhaps you could prove me wrong since you apparantly know all even though clearly you are not even nearly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.69.66 ( talk) 04:10, 30 June 2009
I would like to bring to your attention that it is improper for a biographical article to dedicate so much space to a specific negative incident, as it was that of Mr. Moyle. Since the whole article is brief, the Moyle case doesn’t deserve more than two or three lines.
But I would like first to focus on something more specific in the Moyle's section. In the article it is said: “Moyle condemned the alleged alcoholism of Rutherford in the same letter.” Can you please show me where Moyle claims that Rutherford was an alcoholic? -- Scientia est opulentia ( talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For the article Joseph Franklin Rutherford, the self-proclaimed User:Pastorrussell insists upon including this statement:
Most recently, he/she restored the sentence, commenting "Documented history".
diff Huh? What sort of "documentation"? The only "documenting" cited was a blog entry which concludes "Judge Rutherford is said to have been illegally buried on the property, though this has frequently been disproven."
Wikipedia's intention is not to immortalize every bit of grounded or groundless outrageousness "speculation" that has ever occurred. Such "documented history" as is repeated in that self-mitigating blog is patently unencyclopedic. --
AuthorityTam (
talk)
00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The
article formerly said:
Except that the will doesn't say that.
Russell's will is at Wikisource
[2], but even the cited reference
[3] didn't actually support the point! Here is the contradicting excerpt:
One wonders how such an obviously untrue idea became so perpetuated. Editors should work to correct this error when they see it in other articles related to Russell, Bible Students, and Jehovah's Witnesses. -- AuthorityTam ( talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As a courtesy, this is an advice that I'll soon be making a substantial change to this article. The article on Rutherford has so far been inadequate in several areas, providing insufficient information on his background, the major challenges he faced in 1917 and the impact he made on the Bible Student/Jehovah's Witness organisation and teachings. I have addressed all these areas, and I have also added sections on his character and personal life, which were barely touched in the existing article.
I have endeavoured to be fair, balanced and inaccurate, excluding some of the criticisms or allegations about his life that lack reliable, verifiable sources and drawing on both WT and external sources. Where I've included allegations about his conduct in the battle for leadership in 1917-18, I have endeavoured to balance it with Rutherford's own defence. By all means read my draft of the article at
User:LTSally/JFR and let me know if you have any serious objections to the way I've handled it or can see any areas you believe may be lacking neutrality or carry the wrong emphasis. I'll admit now that the coverage of the 1917 leadership challenge is long, but his victory was, I believe, pivotal in the history of the Bible Student movement and I'd prefer to see it cover all the main bases. I can split it off easily enough, however. The overall length without images is 58kb; the
Jehovah's Witnesses article, by comparison, is 79kb. I'll carry over existing images and do other tidy-ups as required. I'll hang back and wait a few days for comments.
LTSally (
talk)
11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. I've looked at that a dozen times and never spotted it. Unless there's anything major, hold off if you like and then you can go town. I'll put it on tomorrow night if there are no great objections from other quarters. LTSally ( talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The controversy over Rutherford's burial place has been well covered and I've found a link to a pdf of Consolation that deals with the issue. Does anyone have any details of his funeral though? Some online forums refer to only four people attending his funeral, and that group included neither his wife, son, nor Knorr, his successor. It seems puzzling that there's so little written about it; even Macmillan ignores it. Did the WT or Consolation report on it? LTSally ( talk) 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the largest, if not the largest, schism occurring in relation to the Watchtower organization occurred during the years of Rutherford's administration. This is noteworthy to the article on Rutherford. I propose editors add a section addressing this.
According to information published by Watchtower, between 1927 and 1928 there occurred an 80 percent drop in attendance for the organization's most important single event known as the Memorial. In 1925 attendance for this event was 90,434. In 1926 attendance for this event was 89,278. In 1927 attendance for this event was 88,544. In 1928 attendance for this event was 17,380. It took more than a decade for the number of persons associated with Watchtower’s most important event to regain its former high of over 90,000. -- Marvin Shilmer ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Each bullet point in this section was formerly a section. The only change was to group them together and use "* " to replace the first "==" which had made each a section. No text was deleted; no signature was deleted. Many of the former sections were either empty or unsigned.-- AuthorityTam ( talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of facts that can be put on this page that Jehovah's Witnesses don't seem to want us or the public (the ones who haven't been poisoned yet) to see. This article is no where near done.
I think it is important to get a group of people to moderate this page. Ideally, the moderation team should contain members of the JW and non-JW communities. My concern, however, is to find JW members reasonable enough to approach the article from all point-of-views.
-- Bart weisser 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has been mentioned about the parts of the bible that rutherford changed, there are a lot of passages that he claimed were "errors". it also needs to be mentioned that there are a lot of controversies over these changes to the bible.
I understand that Judge Rutherford wrote a sypathetic letter or a declaration of facts to the German Nazis in 1933. Should some mention of this and a link to the declaration itself be included in the article? 10 February 2007
Why hasn't Rutherford's death been mentioned? I can understand the complete embaressment to Jehovah's Witnesses because he died by means of excessive alcohol (which contradicts his "liquor is of satan"), but that doesn't mean it should be missed out, this article is currently biased.
May I also add that his predictions are not mentioned.
Please, this article is weak.Such as told up, this man was a drunk.He was also linked to freemasonry , a supporter of many quacks such Albert Abrams, an eugenicist, a racist and many other terrible failures.I think that this article didn't showed even 10% of sins of this bad man.About the politic of the watchtower under nazism in Germany, also there's nothing.Until 1940 this man and his watchtower society, were suporters of eugenic sterilization.Also, he told that any follower of watchtower couldn't be vaccinated. Agre22 ( talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22
The site http://www.seanet.com/~raines/homicide.html has a short text, about the support given to eugenics, by this protestant leader.The watchtower gave many support to eugenics, racism and racial segregation, during this times.This was the general rule, among all american protestant denominations. Agre22 ( talk) 14:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)agre22
We need a source for such a claim. Tony Wills, in his A People For His Name, claims Rutherford was born to baptist parents but "had not taken to religion in his youth". He adds (p.131): "Rutherford, although he looked down on the Churches, had never become doubtful of God's existence. The orderliness of the universe and the existence of life proved to him that there was a higher intelligence." Only one of those claims can be correct. What is the source of the claim that he had been an atheist when he bought Russell's books? LTSally ( talk) 10:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Comments where it would not hazve been seen. Astronaut ( talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
By all means, lets have a discussion. Only I'm not sure I would actually find anyone reasonable to have a discussion with. Perhaps you could prove me wrong since you apparantly know all even though clearly you are not even nearly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.69.66 ( talk) 04:10, 30 June 2009
I would like to bring to your attention that it is improper for a biographical article to dedicate so much space to a specific negative incident, as it was that of Mr. Moyle. Since the whole article is brief, the Moyle case doesn’t deserve more than two or three lines.
But I would like first to focus on something more specific in the Moyle's section. In the article it is said: “Moyle condemned the alleged alcoholism of Rutherford in the same letter.” Can you please show me where Moyle claims that Rutherford was an alcoholic? -- Scientia est opulentia ( talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For the article Joseph Franklin Rutherford, the self-proclaimed User:Pastorrussell insists upon including this statement:
Most recently, he/she restored the sentence, commenting "Documented history".
diff Huh? What sort of "documentation"? The only "documenting" cited was a blog entry which concludes "Judge Rutherford is said to have been illegally buried on the property, though this has frequently been disproven."
Wikipedia's intention is not to immortalize every bit of grounded or groundless outrageousness "speculation" that has ever occurred. Such "documented history" as is repeated in that self-mitigating blog is patently unencyclopedic. --
AuthorityTam (
talk)
00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The
article formerly said:
Except that the will doesn't say that.
Russell's will is at Wikisource
[2], but even the cited reference
[3] didn't actually support the point! Here is the contradicting excerpt:
One wonders how such an obviously untrue idea became so perpetuated. Editors should work to correct this error when they see it in other articles related to Russell, Bible Students, and Jehovah's Witnesses. -- AuthorityTam ( talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As a courtesy, this is an advice that I'll soon be making a substantial change to this article. The article on Rutherford has so far been inadequate in several areas, providing insufficient information on his background, the major challenges he faced in 1917 and the impact he made on the Bible Student/Jehovah's Witness organisation and teachings. I have addressed all these areas, and I have also added sections on his character and personal life, which were barely touched in the existing article.
I have endeavoured to be fair, balanced and inaccurate, excluding some of the criticisms or allegations about his life that lack reliable, verifiable sources and drawing on both WT and external sources. Where I've included allegations about his conduct in the battle for leadership in 1917-18, I have endeavoured to balance it with Rutherford's own defence. By all means read my draft of the article at
User:LTSally/JFR and let me know if you have any serious objections to the way I've handled it or can see any areas you believe may be lacking neutrality or carry the wrong emphasis. I'll admit now that the coverage of the 1917 leadership challenge is long, but his victory was, I believe, pivotal in the history of the Bible Student movement and I'd prefer to see it cover all the main bases. I can split it off easily enough, however. The overall length without images is 58kb; the
Jehovah's Witnesses article, by comparison, is 79kb. I'll carry over existing images and do other tidy-ups as required. I'll hang back and wait a few days for comments.
LTSally (
talk)
11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. I've looked at that a dozen times and never spotted it. Unless there's anything major, hold off if you like and then you can go town. I'll put it on tomorrow night if there are no great objections from other quarters. LTSally ( talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The controversy over Rutherford's burial place has been well covered and I've found a link to a pdf of Consolation that deals with the issue. Does anyone have any details of his funeral though? Some online forums refer to only four people attending his funeral, and that group included neither his wife, son, nor Knorr, his successor. It seems puzzling that there's so little written about it; even Macmillan ignores it. Did the WT or Consolation report on it? LTSally ( talk) 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the largest, if not the largest, schism occurring in relation to the Watchtower organization occurred during the years of Rutherford's administration. This is noteworthy to the article on Rutherford. I propose editors add a section addressing this.
According to information published by Watchtower, between 1927 and 1928 there occurred an 80 percent drop in attendance for the organization's most important single event known as the Memorial. In 1925 attendance for this event was 90,434. In 1926 attendance for this event was 89,278. In 1927 attendance for this event was 88,544. In 1928 attendance for this event was 17,380. It took more than a decade for the number of persons associated with Watchtower’s most important event to regain its former high of over 90,000. -- Marvin Shilmer ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)