Wikipedia

Talk:Bible Student movement

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jeffro77 in topic Disputed changes
Learn more about this page

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Splinter groups

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding this edit, it is inherently impossible to find an explicit statement positively indicating that they ignore something (beyond the period immediately associated with the events involved; i.e. 1930 would not count). However, they do frequently state in their literature that "Bible Students" is merely a name by which "Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" (an oversimplified misrepresentation), which in itself is probably sufficient to indicate that they ignore the continued existence of other Bible Students. That said, the part of the sentence adds little importance to the article and it can probably remain as is if other editors agree.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Disputed changes

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

An editor is claiming that his edits are being unfairly reverted. He is invited to calmly discuss his changes here without resorting to personal attacks. As there are separate matters involved, please reply under the relevant section for the separate issues, remembering to properly indent and sign responses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The editor inserted an editorial opinion challenging estimates made by cited sources as unverifiable; such a challenge would need to itself be sourced. It might be the case that this could be resolved by better inline attribution of the other sources asserting the high percentage of those who left (which has been done). The article already acknowledges that there was an influx of new members during the 1920s. However, sources showing such an influx do not support any assertion that claims made in other sources are true or false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The editor also added a statement about the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination changing names so it would not be confused with 'fraudulent Christians', which is very clearly inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice. The statement is based on a primary source written decades after the events, and there is no indication that it was actually the reason given at the time for the change of name. Rather, the reason given explicitly at the time was to avoid confusion with the names of other Bible Student groups. If phrasing referring to other denominations as 'fraudulent Christians' is considered important enough to use at all, it must be clearly indicated as a direct quote with very clear attribution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

An IP editor sought to change the wording back, with a POV claim about it being a "fact" that they needed to be separate from the quoted 'fraudulent Christians'. The additional wordiness about their 'progressive understanding' (i.e. a theological opinion) is unnecessary and adds nothing of weight to the reason given for changing the name. It is not necessary to specifically name the Proclaimers book inline as general readers probably haven't heard of it so it is unhelpful without elaboration of the purpose of that book (which would also be unnecessary here). It is sufficient to attribute the statement to Watch Tower. I have added "also" to the statement to make it clear that the statement does not "insinuate" that they "changed" the reason rather than adding to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The IP editor has now asserted in an edit summary that it is more "professional" to explicitly state inline that "in year, publisher published title which stated...". However, it is self-evident that the cited publisher made the statement in the cited source, and the extended form is neither professional nor standard practice. The IP editor also claims that using the full corporation name of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (which they incorrectly gave as The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society) instead of the short form "Watch Tower Society" is better because the short form 'looks like slang'. However, the short form is actually the form used most often in Watch Tower Society literature and elsewhere, and the longer form is already provided in the article in the Watch Tower Society section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The editor also reverted several improvements to citation formatting and other Manual of Style edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I noticed that you continue to make adjustments to specifically the edits I make. Not only on this page, but on several other pages as well. Though this is appreciated in some cases (for example, when I mentioned how they desired to be separate from Christians who would be fraudulent, you mentioned I should quote it from the book). However, even miniscule changes I make to an article you seem to want to change for subjective reasons which in some cases seems to detract from the article. I have mentioned this to several other editors and they have indicated to me this behavior as quite strange. We suspect that you seem to be targeting my edits specifically. Due to this, I am feeling slightly harrassed via you hounding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment I kindly ask you to stop or else I will be forced to report it. Thank you.

Now, onto the primary post of this topic. You seem to be the type that enjoys discussing the various changes of an article no matter how small. I myself am quite the opposite and desire to simply move on after a change is made. I rarely check the talk pages if my edits are small. However, I will explain the changes I make with this edit. For one, the book title I believe should be included. Why? For a couple reasons. Watchtower Society is used twice in the previous sentence. Using it again seems repetitive. Using a book title is a nice change, accurate, and specific. In addition, I'm going to add the full quote in context back in. This is for a plethora of reasons that I think you and the readers will enjoy. For one, it gives insight in to the progressive, liberal thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses in contrast to the very conservative thinking of the other Bible Student groups. In addition, it gives a further reason for the name change it self. It insinuates to us that if their knowledge of the Bible didn't increase then the name change wouldn't have even happened. This is significant information to know which again ties into the first point.

Your comments on if I should use Bible Student or not are fine. I've replaced it with they. To conclude, I do feel these edits satisfactorily explain why the name change was made. I'm quite happy with these minor edits and I ask that you please respect that in the spirit of Wikipedia (small edits from each person add up. It's my turn to contribute). I do sincerely hope that this concludes the matter. Thank you.

Sincerely, -Artemaeus Creed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The edits you make go against Wikipedia policies. As can be seen in what you recently reverted, there were various edits cleaning up the article, and you have also reverted those with no concern for actual quality of the article, just so you can get your preferred single sentence back. The fact that you 'like to move on after a change is made' (apparently thinking that any edit you make must be accepted without question) is not a good one if your changes are not good. You need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about article discussion. See also WP:BRD. I have made several attempts to get you to engage at this Talk page, and instead of doing that from the outset you have ignored it until now.
Your claim of 'harassment' is a lie, and your claims about discussion with other edits who supposedly agree with you is completely without evidence; not one of the editors you've supposedly spoken with is indicated in your editor history, nor have any made any attempt to discuss at the article Talk page. It would be interesting to see an example of what you consider a "minuscule change" of yours that I have reverted, and then I will explain to you why that change was reverted (again, since I have already explained all of my reversions of your edits). Please note that a false accusation of harassment is itself harassment.
Your claim about "insight in to the progressive, liberal thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses in contrast to the very conservative thinking of the other Bible Student groups" is clearly not neutral (being both a POV assessment of JWs and an attack on other Bible Student groups) and therefore is not appropriate. (It is also a false equivocation to conflate progressive in the sense of 'developing doctrines' with the sense of the word in relation to liberal or conservative politics.) The claim that their knowledge 'increased' in reference to doctrinal changes is simply a theological opinion, and is not in any way an objective analysis.
Regarding the book title, most readers are not likely to be familiar with the book, and it is of significantly more value (and more honest) to clearly show that the claim about 'fraudulent Christians' is a statement from the denomination rather than 'maybe' some third party. Your claim that "Watchtower Society is used twice in the previous sentence" is simply false (and the relevant corporation name is Watch Tower Society). As it stands, the paragraph says the Watch Tower Society gave a reason at the time, and then the Watch Tower Society gave an additional reason later, which is perfectly clear, and not excessive repetition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
To demonstrate, which of these more clearly conveys that someone said something and then the same person later said something else:
  • In 2000, John said, "I like cats". In 2001, John added, "I hate dogs".
  • In 2000, John said, "I like cats". In 2001, A Thing Someone Wrote said, "I hate dogs".
It's quite obvious which is more clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

And such corrections you have told me are appreciated. I mean that Jeff. But unnecessary reversions are unacceptable. You know that as well as I. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I quote: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit." In particular notice the subheading "Bad reasons to revert". "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo. In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing."

What's comical is that I wouldn't even care if you reverted a few edits here or there, but you literally followed me and reverted all of them. It wasn't until edit warring for awhile that you gave in slightly on this article alone. Someone who has been on Wikipedia for 15 years should know better. Keep in mind, you started this, not me. You were the instigator. I was not the one following you around and inhibiting your contributions. It was vice versa. Due to this, future contributors will know of your behavior in order to maintain the articles integrity. It's something you brought upon yourself.

With respect to me talking to other editors about your behavior; Did you know that there are actually other websites besides Wikipedia? I know, it's really surprising. It's called the World Wide Web. Check it out, you can read all about it on Wikipedia.

My claim is biased? Not at all! Your sentiments are fundamentally flawed. Observing that one group may be more liberal than another group (as we so often do in politics) could hardly be considered biased. Within the article there is no mention of it being an "attack" on the Bible students. The quote is a point of view perspective from Jehovah's Witnesses, for sure. However, this is merely a quote indicating the reason for the name change. Nothing more. Any other observations are coming from your own bias.

I will direct you to here for further information. And quote it here as well: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Since we are already attributing this quote to the Watchtower Society, then the quote itself is not against Wikipedia policy.

On the matter of the date (1993), I've found nothing to say that it's even required, however you insisted that it be included. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary I will be setting the example for you. It will stay. I will also be keeping the publisher. Your argument about reader familiarity with source material (the book) is not something I remember reading in the Wikipedia policy. Care to share that with me? Otherwise, it's getting added back in. It's more specific and in line with the direction for biased or opinionated sources (see above). It's also a proper compromise between yourself and I.

With that, I hope that the matter will finally be settled. I have made the appropriate edits. No more reversions. Follow the Wikipedia rules. Move on. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The matter is not closed at all. Once again, you went and reverted an edit encompassing a copyedit of the whole article just so you could get your one preferred sentence back.
Your claim that I have 'followed' you is entirely incorrect. You have edited articles that are on my Watchlist (which, as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject, most if not all related articles are on), and where those edits have been problematic, I have responded. In doing so, I have gone to great pains to try to accommodate your edits, asking you for days to discuss your edits at the articles' Talk pages. Only once a formal complaint against you was lodged have you given this screed here, most of which is not related to article content.
Your claim that I have reverted all your edits is also a lie, and contradicts your claim that you 'appreciate' where I have done my best to accommodate your changes and adapt them to comply with relevant policies. Your personal attacks about me in your edit summaries are also highly inappropriate. The fact that I was fine with your recent edit at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) also contradicts your claim, indicating a degree of confirmation bias.
I did suspect that by 'discussion with other editors', you really meant off-site collusion, but I did not feel it appropriate or necessary to point that out directly. It is unclear whether the other IP editor was 'enlisted' by you by such means, but if so, this would constitute inappropriate stealth canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Input from additional editors requested

edit

Please indicate which of the following statements best conveys the necessary point in a neutral manner:

  • The book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom published in 1993 by the Watchtower Society stated that the name change was also required because as they “progressed in their understanding” of the Bible, “they clearly saw the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
  • In 1993, the Watch Tower Society stated that the name change was also required because of "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
  • In 1993, The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania published the book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom which stated that the name change was also required because they felt "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
  • Some other wording...

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The second one is clearly the superior form. It is succinct, accurate, and does not confuse the issue. Vyselink (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Even with the addition of the third option, the second one is still superior. Adding the name of the book in-text, when it can simply be footnoted as the source, seems superfluous. Vyselink (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The second one is concise and includes a direct quote. It would still be better if an independent source could be used describing that; in a way part of the paragraph is original research using primary sources. —PaleoNeonate – 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely convinced that the additional sentence is required at all, as it does seem like a jab at other denominations without really adding anything substantive. Apart from that, I would think a primary source is probably okay for providing their own view about themselves (so long as properly attributed)? I'm not sure that a comparable secondary source would necessarily exist as they would generally be based on what was actually said at the time. There is already a secondary source for the previous sentence about the name change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes attributed and not self-serving, then if WP:DUE so it depends on context and consensus; although only an essay, WP:MISSION is a pretty good guide for instance (I'm not saying that this quote is necessarily a mission statement, however)... I'm ambivalent about the inclusion so will leave it for you/others to determine, —PaleoNeonate – 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed one essay example: "we are the industry leaders" that struck me as similar to: "we are the holders of truth" ("the rest of Christianity/Christiandom is corrupt", etc). —PaleoNeonate – 06:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually Jeffro that's a good point. Can we realistically include a non-neutral quote neutrally? I'd say leave it out entirely, but if it must be put in then the 2nd option. Vyselink (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It certainly shows the general attitude of the Society in relation to other interpretations and groups... —PaleoNeonate – 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
There are certainly times where the subject of an article has controversial views, and in those cases it is necessary for those views to be presented (with clear attribution) even though they are not neutral. But I am not entirely convinced that this is one of those times. The statement indicates that JWs officially view other denominations with contempt, but since JWs are not the main subject of this article, I'm not sure it is necessary to highlight that view here. I'm also aware that people both for and against JWs could be motivated to retain the statement, either because they support the notion that rival denominations are 'fraudulent' or to emphasise how 'awful' JWs are. (I am not saying that those are the only possible motivations for retaining the statement.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible_Student_movement&oldid=1356402993"