![]() | 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 |
Summersong, could you please be careful making mass deletes. This article was written slowly over time. The prophecies section was not a critique but an acknowledgement of critical views and contained a historical rebuttal of those views. I think it was npov. cairoi 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Sam I thought we had the distribution paragraph all worked out. I feel like you're going back on your word. cairoi 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please archive this page? I'm don't have time to be very involved with the discussion here. I have become busy with work lately and haven't had time to contribute, so I don't know where things stand and what is inactive enough to archive. I wish you all much luck knowing you will all work to make this article better. I might check in from time to time with some contributions though, who knows. I really hope my life makes room for wikipedia again sometime soon. Samrolken 08:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While watchtower (or more commonly awake!) magazines are indeed found in public places it is the rare occurance that they are placed w/o the property owner's knowledge. Indeed, such activity is discouraged in WBTS literature. The publishers of the Watchotwer would be disappointed if they saw a magazine on the windshield of a car where it could easily be damaged or thrown away. Therefore, while the picture on the article's page does not appear derrogatory, it is certainly not indicative of JW publishing practice, at least not in recent years. I feel either a different picture or none at all would be better.
This point goes well with the discussion below about "Laundromat publishing", such a practise of simply leaving literature w/o thought as to its' use should (and most certainly would) be discouraged by local elders if they know of it.
Votes for change or removal? george 20:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None taken, no sweat. I don't mind changing the image, but there are copyright issues. If I reproduce the cover of Watchtower or Awake! in full, I'm infringing on their copyright. (We could, however, make a fair use claim, but the image would not be releasable under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright). If, on the other hand, the magazine was just a part of the picture, and the cover was not shown in full, then the picture is fine to release under the GFDL. The picture of the mag under the windshield wiper is fine to use, for example, as would something like this (not that that would be a good image to use.) But a straight cover image like this wouldn't be allowable. If anyone can find or take a better free-license image, I'm fine with replacing the one here.
My first idea would be to take a photo of a person in a suit, standing in a doorway, holding forward a copy of the magazine and smiling. But then again, that could be playing into stereotypes as well. I'm interested in hearing from any JWs as to what a good image idea would be. – Quadell ( talk) ( help) 19:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that there are serious issues with neutrality. It cannot be denied that members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been looking over this article with good intentions, but with the unavoidable goal of casting a favorable light on their religion. Therefore, I am adding neutrality dispute notices to this page, and other pages affected by the same phenomenon, until more neutral people can become involved. Samrolken
Given that Mormon missionaries include mainstream Christians in their proselytizing efforts, some Christian organizations have published tracts or brochures designed to counter or defend against Mormon missionaries. Conciliar Press, a department of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, has published a brochure designed to protect Orthodox Christians from the proselytizing efforts of what it describes as "cultists" (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). The following excerpt is exemplary of the strong partisan feelings involved:
The text of this excerpt, in its style, tone, and quality, and the title and source of the document it comes from, are demonstrative of the official efforts many denominations of traditional Christianity now are pursuing, as well as their position on Mormonism.
Are we still in dispute or can we remove the npov msg? Your comments are welcome here. george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The warning should be removed. I just read the article over. I am certainly biased against JW (particularly for their views on evolution and blood transfusions for children) but I fail to see a neutrality problem with this article. It seems factual as to print runs, readership, and influence within the JW church. The article clearly states the magazine presents the views of the JH, the views are therefore framed. Further warning is redundant and itself a bias against JH. Vincent 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well then, I will remove the msg now george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Today I've made a number of edits and thought it might be helpful to put some explanation here:
Ah hello, tis me back :) I've been invited back to give my opinions and contribute to the general discussion... I'd rather create a new section in the talk rather than just joining mid discussion. I've read over the article and in general I feel that it is fine up until the "Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency". Although I make no claims that the things said there are false, I do feel that it has little or nothing to do with The Watchtower itself. I feel, personally that this page should be used to describe what The Watchtower is and what it is meant to be used for. The teachings of Witnesses past and present should occupy a different page in my opinion. Zikar Jan 5th 05 | 02:09 AM GMT
I'd like to propose several balancing quotes which could be used in the Eschatology section if it is to be kept at all.
I think that more complete quotes will help give a balanced view of what was written. Unfortunately my access does not go back much past the 50's.
cairoi 16:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If necessary, we can condense this whole section down to a mere sentence or two. But the concept is an important conflict that does need to be mentioned. Here are three proposals: Tom H. 21:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Tom, thanks so much for your help.
The problem I see is one that Danny has brought up and seems to continue to occur across JW articles. This issue of escatology is one that should be dealt with in the "doctrines of" page. I would suggest moving this entire discussion there and possibly archiving it to another page here, notated thusly. The Watchtower is not the only source of education produced by JW's and to say that "The Watchtower" has taught this or that is clumsy wording. george 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many observers have been uncomfortable that the The Watchtower has long (or always) had an editorial perspective favorable to persistently postulating subsequent definite and proximate dates for the end of the present time commonly expected in Christianity. [That's a veiled way of saying that people often pounce on the "leapfrog" eschatological timelines posited in The Watchtower.] Tom H.
The editorial perspective of The Watchtower favors maintaining a sense of urgency among readers concerning the signs of Christ's coming and the end of the world. Accordingly, through its history, The Watchtower has forwarded many definite and proximate calculated eschatological dates based on biblical interpretation. These dates have routinely passed without fanfare. Many critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses find this tendency problematic. Tom H.
The Watchtower has long drawn criticism for its tendency to publish definite and proximate eschatological dates that routinely pass without fulfillment. [Hmm. What would be the JW perspective?] Tom H.
The Watchtower has long drawn criticism that it publishes definite dates for the end of the world. The Watchtower's subtitle, "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom," indicates it's interest in eschatology but Watchtower writers caution, "It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time." (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963)
I have taken the liberty of removing the escatology text and moving it here, per the discussion on this page. Some alternatives have been listed, the best of which would be to add this data to the Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page and discuss its' inclusion there.
regards, george 22:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency
The Watchtower has included various attempts to interpret prophecies of Armageddon, the end of the world and the coming new millenium. Though some past attempts have included hopeful dates, since early on there has been the caution that the exact time of the end of the world cannot be predicted. Watchtower writers hold that Armageddon is imminent and urge people to react immediately to this view.
The stated purpose section began with
This sentence, without quotation marks, is POV. (It takes the point of view that God is named Jehovah, for example.) I notice that the same purpose is stated two paragraphs later, in the front-cover quotation. Hence, I boldly took out the first instance. Dbenbenn 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, since the comment was redundant, it makes sense to remove it. However it appears quite silly to call the quote of a magazine which states its' own purpose as POV. The magazine itself is definitely POV (duh!), but the quoting of it isn't, is it? So I boldly will leave it alone. george 03:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An issue that continually comes up, as georgem mentioned, is whether certain information should be on a particular page. As a practical concern, that question is often answered best by experience with the occurence of anonymous edits. Often you will notice that anons continually kick against what you are trying to do in an article. I have found, or decided, that in those cases, the best response is, "if you can't beat them, join them". To keep your own sanity, you have to find a way to express things that will satisfy the readers and not keep inviting counterproductive edits. For example, perhaps only time will tell how much this article needs to say about Watchtower Eschatology. I think it is wise to say just a little and include an inline link to the more explanatory, exploratory article. Tom H.
Nice picture Georgem. cairoi 05:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The word "activism" appears just once in the 2004 magazines, in the article "Should the Clergy Preach Politics?" The middle sectence of paragraph 3 reads: " "It was evangelical churchgoers who sometimes questioned the public activism of their clergy," said a Christian Century article on political theology." (w04 5/1 p.3)
The article doesn't answer this question. Who writes the articles, who decides what goes into them? -- 84.58.44.81 12:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zikar, you seem to know about this. Could you please explain in the article who has hands on editorial decision-making authority for the magazine and who has ultimate editorial responsibility? Tom Haws 21:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The article says the magazine is published via the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Wallkill, New York.
Any additional info for that location ? Other sources put that society in Brooklin. Also, Wallkill leads to a disambig page. Flammifer 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The Zip code is 12589, so it's Wallkill, Ulster County, New York. - Glenn L
I'd like to see neutral and complete coverage of everything on Wikipedia, and it seems therefore disturbing that the current version of the article has been "sanitized" of any critical comments, or anything that alludes to the many ongoing controversies regarding The Watchtower magazine. This causes a POV concern for me. Samrolken 04:54, 26 July 2005 (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 |
Summersong, could you please be careful making mass deletes. This article was written slowly over time. The prophecies section was not a critique but an acknowledgement of critical views and contained a historical rebuttal of those views. I think it was npov. cairoi 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Sam I thought we had the distribution paragraph all worked out. I feel like you're going back on your word. cairoi 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please archive this page? I'm don't have time to be very involved with the discussion here. I have become busy with work lately and haven't had time to contribute, so I don't know where things stand and what is inactive enough to archive. I wish you all much luck knowing you will all work to make this article better. I might check in from time to time with some contributions though, who knows. I really hope my life makes room for wikipedia again sometime soon. Samrolken 08:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While watchtower (or more commonly awake!) magazines are indeed found in public places it is the rare occurance that they are placed w/o the property owner's knowledge. Indeed, such activity is discouraged in WBTS literature. The publishers of the Watchotwer would be disappointed if they saw a magazine on the windshield of a car where it could easily be damaged or thrown away. Therefore, while the picture on the article's page does not appear derrogatory, it is certainly not indicative of JW publishing practice, at least not in recent years. I feel either a different picture or none at all would be better.
This point goes well with the discussion below about "Laundromat publishing", such a practise of simply leaving literature w/o thought as to its' use should (and most certainly would) be discouraged by local elders if they know of it.
Votes for change or removal? george 20:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None taken, no sweat. I don't mind changing the image, but there are copyright issues. If I reproduce the cover of Watchtower or Awake! in full, I'm infringing on their copyright. (We could, however, make a fair use claim, but the image would not be releasable under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright). If, on the other hand, the magazine was just a part of the picture, and the cover was not shown in full, then the picture is fine to release under the GFDL. The picture of the mag under the windshield wiper is fine to use, for example, as would something like this (not that that would be a good image to use.) But a straight cover image like this wouldn't be allowable. If anyone can find or take a better free-license image, I'm fine with replacing the one here.
My first idea would be to take a photo of a person in a suit, standing in a doorway, holding forward a copy of the magazine and smiling. But then again, that could be playing into stereotypes as well. I'm interested in hearing from any JWs as to what a good image idea would be. – Quadell ( talk) ( help) 19:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that there are serious issues with neutrality. It cannot be denied that members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been looking over this article with good intentions, but with the unavoidable goal of casting a favorable light on their religion. Therefore, I am adding neutrality dispute notices to this page, and other pages affected by the same phenomenon, until more neutral people can become involved. Samrolken
Given that Mormon missionaries include mainstream Christians in their proselytizing efforts, some Christian organizations have published tracts or brochures designed to counter or defend against Mormon missionaries. Conciliar Press, a department of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, has published a brochure designed to protect Orthodox Christians from the proselytizing efforts of what it describes as "cultists" (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). The following excerpt is exemplary of the strong partisan feelings involved:
The text of this excerpt, in its style, tone, and quality, and the title and source of the document it comes from, are demonstrative of the official efforts many denominations of traditional Christianity now are pursuing, as well as their position on Mormonism.
Are we still in dispute or can we remove the npov msg? Your comments are welcome here. george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The warning should be removed. I just read the article over. I am certainly biased against JW (particularly for their views on evolution and blood transfusions for children) but I fail to see a neutrality problem with this article. It seems factual as to print runs, readership, and influence within the JW church. The article clearly states the magazine presents the views of the JH, the views are therefore framed. Further warning is redundant and itself a bias against JH. Vincent 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well then, I will remove the msg now george 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Today I've made a number of edits and thought it might be helpful to put some explanation here:
Ah hello, tis me back :) I've been invited back to give my opinions and contribute to the general discussion... I'd rather create a new section in the talk rather than just joining mid discussion. I've read over the article and in general I feel that it is fine up until the "Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency". Although I make no claims that the things said there are false, I do feel that it has little or nothing to do with The Watchtower itself. I feel, personally that this page should be used to describe what The Watchtower is and what it is meant to be used for. The teachings of Witnesses past and present should occupy a different page in my opinion. Zikar Jan 5th 05 | 02:09 AM GMT
I'd like to propose several balancing quotes which could be used in the Eschatology section if it is to be kept at all.
I think that more complete quotes will help give a balanced view of what was written. Unfortunately my access does not go back much past the 50's.
cairoi 16:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If necessary, we can condense this whole section down to a mere sentence or two. But the concept is an important conflict that does need to be mentioned. Here are three proposals: Tom H. 21:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Tom, thanks so much for your help.
The problem I see is one that Danny has brought up and seems to continue to occur across JW articles. This issue of escatology is one that should be dealt with in the "doctrines of" page. I would suggest moving this entire discussion there and possibly archiving it to another page here, notated thusly. The Watchtower is not the only source of education produced by JW's and to say that "The Watchtower" has taught this or that is clumsy wording. george 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many observers have been uncomfortable that the The Watchtower has long (or always) had an editorial perspective favorable to persistently postulating subsequent definite and proximate dates for the end of the present time commonly expected in Christianity. [That's a veiled way of saying that people often pounce on the "leapfrog" eschatological timelines posited in The Watchtower.] Tom H.
The editorial perspective of The Watchtower favors maintaining a sense of urgency among readers concerning the signs of Christ's coming and the end of the world. Accordingly, through its history, The Watchtower has forwarded many definite and proximate calculated eschatological dates based on biblical interpretation. These dates have routinely passed without fanfare. Many critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses find this tendency problematic. Tom H.
The Watchtower has long drawn criticism for its tendency to publish definite and proximate eschatological dates that routinely pass without fulfillment. [Hmm. What would be the JW perspective?] Tom H.
The Watchtower has long drawn criticism that it publishes definite dates for the end of the world. The Watchtower's subtitle, "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom," indicates it's interest in eschatology but Watchtower writers caution, "It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time." (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963)
I have taken the liberty of removing the escatology text and moving it here, per the discussion on this page. Some alternatives have been listed, the best of which would be to add this data to the Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page and discuss its' inclusion there.
regards, george 22:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eschatology and Themes of Expectation and Urgency
The Watchtower has included various attempts to interpret prophecies of Armageddon, the end of the world and the coming new millenium. Though some past attempts have included hopeful dates, since early on there has been the caution that the exact time of the end of the world cannot be predicted. Watchtower writers hold that Armageddon is imminent and urge people to react immediately to this view.
The stated purpose section began with
This sentence, without quotation marks, is POV. (It takes the point of view that God is named Jehovah, for example.) I notice that the same purpose is stated two paragraphs later, in the front-cover quotation. Hence, I boldly took out the first instance. Dbenbenn 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, since the comment was redundant, it makes sense to remove it. However it appears quite silly to call the quote of a magazine which states its' own purpose as POV. The magazine itself is definitely POV (duh!), but the quoting of it isn't, is it? So I boldly will leave it alone. george 03:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An issue that continually comes up, as georgem mentioned, is whether certain information should be on a particular page. As a practical concern, that question is often answered best by experience with the occurence of anonymous edits. Often you will notice that anons continually kick against what you are trying to do in an article. I have found, or decided, that in those cases, the best response is, "if you can't beat them, join them". To keep your own sanity, you have to find a way to express things that will satisfy the readers and not keep inviting counterproductive edits. For example, perhaps only time will tell how much this article needs to say about Watchtower Eschatology. I think it is wise to say just a little and include an inline link to the more explanatory, exploratory article. Tom H.
Nice picture Georgem. cairoi 05:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The word "activism" appears just once in the 2004 magazines, in the article "Should the Clergy Preach Politics?" The middle sectence of paragraph 3 reads: " "It was evangelical churchgoers who sometimes questioned the public activism of their clergy," said a Christian Century article on political theology." (w04 5/1 p.3)
The article doesn't answer this question. Who writes the articles, who decides what goes into them? -- 84.58.44.81 12:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zikar, you seem to know about this. Could you please explain in the article who has hands on editorial decision-making authority for the magazine and who has ultimate editorial responsibility? Tom Haws 21:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The article says the magazine is published via the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Wallkill, New York.
Any additional info for that location ? Other sources put that society in Brooklin. Also, Wallkill leads to a disambig page. Flammifer 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The Zip code is 12589, so it's Wallkill, Ulster County, New York. - Glenn L
I'd like to see neutral and complete coverage of everything on Wikipedia, and it seems therefore disturbing that the current version of the article has been "sanitized" of any critical comments, or anything that alludes to the many ongoing controversies regarding The Watchtower magazine. This causes a POV concern for me. Samrolken 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)