Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) |
Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
::::::::WP recommends to Only revert vandalism or truly inaccurate things, etc. Not wordings that you and your partner don't happen to like. As I said, I respect these two things, whether I agree with what is going on or not: 3RR and real "consensus". If real genuine consensus (not just you and BlackCab, because given the history, that's really not nearly enough), has this much of an issue or (to be frank) a hang-up over these things, then I back off. I respect, though don't agree. I know what's what. But "no own" means something, and you're fooling yourselves if you both think that you have not violated that majorly on this specific article over the months and years. And that's just not cool or fair to other editors who mean well, and do well. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::WP recommends to Only revert vandalism or truly inaccurate things, etc. Not wordings that you and your partner don't happen to like. As I said, I respect these two things, whether I agree with what is going on or not: 3RR and real "consensus". If real genuine consensus (not just you and BlackCab, because given the history, that's really not nearly enough), has this much of an issue or (to be frank) a hang-up over these things, then I back off. I respect, though don't agree. I know what's what. But "no own" means something, and you're fooling yourselves if you both think that you have not violated that majorly on this specific article over the months and years. And that's just not cool or fair to other editors who mean well, and do well. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::It is fairly evident that you're just arguing for the sake of it. I have already directed you to appropriate dispute resolution avenues. It's also evident that you don't understand that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays|essays]] are not ''policies'', ''guidelines'' or ''formal recommendations''. Further, you're arguing for wording that simply is not an improvement, and is not found in JW publications, despite your repeated claims.--[[User:Jeffro77|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77|talk]]) 12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::It is fairly evident that you're just arguing for the sake of it. I have already directed you to appropriate dispute resolution avenues. It's also evident that you don't understand that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays|essays]] are not ''policies'', ''guidelines'' or ''formal recommendations''. Further, you're arguing for wording that simply is not an improvement, and is not found in JW publications, despite your repeated claims.--[[User:Jeffro77|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77|talk]]) 12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::And it is fairly obvious that you'll rudely dismiss sincere points and not consider anything, and that you and BlackCab will never change. I didn't start this "argument", either. You and BlackCab are incapable of leaving edits alone that you personally don't like. But what I said before still stands. I respect 3RR and genuine consensus on Talk pages. It's up to YOU if you want to take it to a "dispute page". You want to bypass getting real consensus on the article talk because you and BlackCab like to think you already reached it (as if you and BlackCab are the only contributers to ever answer to?) |
::::::::::And it is fairly obvious that you'll rudely dismiss sincere points and not consider anything, and that you and BlackCab will never change. I didn't start this "argument", either. You and BlackCab are incapable of leaving edits alone that you personally don't like. But what I said before still stands. I respect 3RR and genuine consensus on Talk pages. It's up to YOU if you want to take it to a "dispute page". You want to bypass getting real consensus on the article talk because you and BlackCab like to think you already reached it (as if you and BlackCab are the only contributers to ever answer to?) Get real consensus on here etc, then I back off. Also, the wording is in JW publications, but even if you don'tfind it quite like that, even BlackCab said that it does not have to exactly "mirror" word-for-word there. '''But you'll deny that JWs have said that pagan celebrations are against the Bible? Really?''' This is unnecessarily edit-warring and bickering, when you feel that this article is being edited in ways you both personally don't like, and you both try to control and own it. Not cool, and not kosher. The wording "pagan origins which they feel is against Scriptural teachings" will be restored sooner or later. I'm busy now though, as I don't spend all day on Wikipedia. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:45, 12 February 2014
Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request
1. Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. should be changed too "... and are sometimes shunned...."
2. although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible should be omitted (There are many errors in this book and it should not be used as a source)
3. Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications. should be omitted (There are baptized witnesses who openly criticize what they feel is wrong, they are not shunned nor discouraged)
4. Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. should be omitted. Personal opinions and private ideas can be shared
5. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, but that God is the final judge. should be changed to "... teach that they...." only should be omitted this has never been taught
6. Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps best known for their efforts to spread their beliefs should be changed to "...efforts to spread the word of the Bible"
7. Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group. should be changed to ".... is encouraged to become baptized...."
8. Witnesses are told they are under a biblical command to engage in public preaching. "....are encouraged because of biblical command to engage...."
9. They are instructed to devote as much time as possible to their ministry and are required to submit an individual monthly "Field Service Report". should be changed to "They are encouraged to devote as much time as they have or feel to their ministry....." I asked this specific question and was told that the time you devote is completely up to you and how much time you feel is necessary
10. ....members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned. should be omitted I openly disagree all the time and I am not shunned, I am applauded for being a critical thinker
11. Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization".[307][308][309][310] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[311][312] and would "cause division".[313] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[314][315][316] should be omitted I openly question, I am applauded for my independent thinking, I openly disagree no one condemns me
Sources: I have been studying with this sect for 2 years now, and attending their meetings regularly, the above information I questioned the witnesses about. Please contact me if you need more sources, don't reject me readily I do believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia and depend on it at times, I have been donating money since last year to keep it up ad free so please consider my plea. Some of the the books published about Jehovah's Witnesses are biased, and the most recent one that I know of was written in 2002, over 10 years ago, I am pondering on publishing a newer book.
Rivlyb (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
1. The existing wording is correct. The process of "formally" leaving is to write a letter of disassociation. The Watchtower has explicitly stated that a person who does this is to be treated the same as a disfellowshipped person.
2. Holden's book qualifies as a reliable source. I have found only a couple of minor errors in the book, and neither are cited at this article.
3. The wording is correct and based on a RS. A JW who openly criticized teachings would be reprimanded and, if they persisted, disfellowshipped for apostasy.
4. The wording is correct and based on the Watch Tower Society's own literature as well as other RS.
5. The wording is correct. I'll provide a source later. The word "only" is used several times in the cited sources, directly from WTS publications.
6. Their best-known piece of literature, which they endeavour to share, is The Watchtower, which contains their beliefs.
7. The wording is correct. "Encouraged to" is JW jargon.
8. Ditto. Watchtower literature has repeatedly used the word "command" in relation to public ministry.
9. Definitely an instruction. The existing wording is correct.
10. See No.3 above. You say in your comments you are just "studying" with the Witnesses, hence presumably not baptised. Only baptised JWs can be disfellowshipped and shunned. JWs do allow a certain amount of latitude for prospective JWs to demonstrate their critical thinking and freedom of expression. This changes post-baptism.
11. The statements are correct and based on multiple RS. BlackCab (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- 12: The teachings of JWs are all in accordance to the Bible. The difference between JWs and other Christians is that they encourage regular intake of Bible knowledge and to live up to Jehovah's standard to the best of one's ability, they like to follow the bible standards to the Tee and their best. And of course, the fact that there is a God whose name is Jehovah, which needs to be sanctified and well known. That Jesus is his son, and not God himself. The fact that there is no eternal damnation, because a God who is loving and merciful would never create a dark place for his own children to suffer in. God does not incite fear and demand devotion. He gives free-will. If one chooses not to follow, he will not receive the chance to live on this earth forever. He is not a puppeteer. He treats us like he treats his angels. He wants us to believe in him, and to obey him (live up to his standard.) His standards are not hard to follow, if understood and studied well, one will realise they are all in-built anyway.
- Baptised/unbaptised witnessed are encouraged to be honest about their short-comings so that they can get help and counsel from elders of the congregation. They are not shunned. Shunned is a very strong word. Nobody is unwelcome at a meeting. They keep a keen eye on how a person repents, how they make amends and how they bounce back. There is no wrong in talking about personal views. They encourage baptised or unbaptised witnesses to challenge and question because JWs do believe, practice and prove the Bible right. That's why they call it the truth. The truth can never be wrong. They encourage discussions on various topics, no matter who. A disfellowshipped witness is allowed to attend meetings, is allowed to raise their hand to answer questions, but only in time are their answers taken. This practice encourages them to be persistent and never lose hope and work harder.
- Yes they do say that in the end it is Jehovah who will be the final judge, they include themselves in the notion that only Jehovah knows what lies in whose heart. No witness/non-witness can mask that from him. Even they are susceptible to losing eternal life. Being an official JW does not guarantee eternal life. It only adds on to one's spiritual effort and life. How they make use of it, or allow themselves to be used for God's work, is up to them. ---
Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013
Well I would like to say that the location of the J.W headquarters changed last year. The beliefs written are not all correct. Which is a really big deal. All the articles listed at the bottom are over the top and unnecessary for the fact you can get articles for free from their official website, therefore over-complicating the information.
Christine Elena Kirk (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your claim about the headquarters is incorrect. The new headquarters in upstate New York is still under construction, and the Watch Tower Society has only indicated the future move in 2017.
- The existence of the official website does not negate the suitability of having a Wikipedia article on the subject, and the official website can hardly be considered to be a neutral source. You should probably also read Wikipedia's standards about reliable sources.
- Rather than claiming that the "beliefs written are not all correct", it would be helpful if you could be specific about which information you believe to be incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Bible prophecy
User:Undentman, in this edit, requested: 'Under "Failed Predictions", in the first sentence, please change "and has" to "and, through Bible prophecy, has"." The suggested wording is not entirely true. The article at that point cites the 15 July 1960 Watchtower which claims that "in 1942 the faithful and discreet slave guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up ... Once again the faithful and discreet slave has been tipped off ahead of time for the guidance of all lovers of God". Watch Tower Society publications have repeatedly claimed that God "revealed" matters to the JW leadership. The current wording is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Biblical Christianity
I was reverted when removing "Biblical" ("or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Biblical Christianity") from the lead section, a word recently added to the article. My reason for reverting was I've not heard about unbiblical Christianity, and the addition either way was redundant. It was left a notice on my talkpage, with claims of being disrespectful for using "redundant", as it was added to be contrary to nominal Christianity. I won't start an edit war about nothing, so leave it up to other to revert the added word once again.
To be nitpicking about the topic: JW does actually think they got the only true kind of Christianity, so if adding a descriptive adjective according to their believes, it may should have been "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as it is all about their consideration. True Christianity could also be a contrary description to nominal Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Grranbahr, I appreciate your response on your own talk page about this. (If consensus on here goes one way, of course I respect it, though I may not necessarily agree per se.) My points were basically these: I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. You and BlackCab. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point about nominal "Christianity" that may even claim NOT go by the Bible all that much, by their own admission, and also the point too regarding the edit itself...of wiki and "no own".
- Frankly, speaking. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. As even you seem to be conceding, in a way. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". And that's how it came across, honestly. No disrespect intended.
- That mod is sourced and true. And just bit more clear. So? JWs don’t consider it compatible more specifically with BIBLICAL Christianity. Not just broad or nominal so-called "Christianity".
- Yes, your suggestion about the term "true Christianity" in the context of what JWs themselves consider to be "not compatible with". But that is also what they consider "Biblical" Christianity.
- Again, though, the term "Christianity" for a while now has been too broad or general...or nominal...and arguably not clear or precise enough, in the given context, as even you seem to admit. So arguably no need to remove that correct minor elab...in that particular sentence and drift. this is a wiki....the edit was good-faith and valid....
- Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves. Some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. It was not redundant necessarily, per context, but just more clear...as, again, not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical". But many times just nominal or general. By your own admission. This is a wiki. No one owns the article. And my concern too was that removing valid good-faith (and sourced) minor modifications or elaborations because of "don't like" or maybe little misunderstanding of the point made, which was a contextually valid point in reality...was not necessary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The phrase "Biblical Christianity" (ignoring the incorrect capitalisation of "biblical") is meaningless here and the addition of the word "biblical" does nothing to add information. The JWs consider Christmas, Easter etc to be incompatible with Christianity, period. BlackCab (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. Number one: though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. Number two: it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) Number three: this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing elaboration to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. Number four: this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. Number five: I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- All Christian groups base their beliefs—including celebrations they deem acceptable—on their interpretations of the Bible. (For example, it could be argued that the use of wedding rings is an unbiblical and pagan custom, but this supposedly 'unbiblical' custom is happily observed by JWs along with other Christian groups.) Whether any particular group has interpretations that differ from the intepretations of another group (in this case, JWs) in no way means that those other groups are automatically 'unbiblical'. The use of 'Biblical Christianity' in the manner suggested is not only unnecessary (and the capitalisation is not supported by Wikipedia Manual of Style), but is also biased (specifically, Gabby Merger is making a priori assertions that attempt to uniquely equate the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with the ill-defined term, biblical Christianity). Similarly, the alternative suggestion of 'true Christianity' is also biased, and probably even worse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. Number one: though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. Number two: it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) Number three: this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing elaboration to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. Number four: this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. Number five: I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jeffro, what you're failing to understand is that the point being made was how Jehovah's Witnesses see it, per the context of the sentence. They deem the "pagan holidays" situation as against not just "Christianity" in the broad sense of how the word is nominally used many ways, but more specifically and clearly "true" or "biblical" Christianity. They (and others) are the ones who have many times called it that (either "true Christianity" or "biblical Christianity" etc) to make it more clear that it's not just a vague nominal or generic thing. You were wrong in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. (Not all churches in actuality claim to go so strictly by the Bible. There are things known as "liberal churches" who admit to not really following or even believing the Bible so closely etc.) And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or generally or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. As I said, even the other editor Grranbahr conceded the point in a way (if you read his words above), and even said that the word "true" would or could be put in, or could be better in a way. As I said to BlackCab, if consensus truly builds against this minor good-faith (and sourced) elaboration, of course I'll respect that. But I am reverting you, Jeffro, well after 24 hours, given that your argument does not really stand or hold well against an accurate elaboration, per context, and per JW's own writings on the matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am not 'failing to see' anything. I am aware the sentence expresses a JW view, and I am also aware that the extra use of 'biblical' is superfluous to the expression of JW belief already given. A group having a different biblical interpretation—or even the absense of a specific interpretation on a particular matter does not make the teachings of other groups 'unbiblical'. The additional adjective unnecessarily and incorrectly implies that JWs have a monopoly on what defines 'biblical Christianity'. You are actually misrepresentng the JW view, which is actually that all professed Christians shouldn't celebrate those things. Your wording makes an additional claim about an arbitrary subset of Christians' based on an ambiguous definition. You made your 'good-faith edit', and it was not supported by three separate editors; no editors have supported your view, and there is clearly no concensus in support of your edit. You should accept this and move on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jeffro, what you're failing to understand is that the point being made was how Jehovah's Witnesses see it, per the context of the sentence. They deem the "pagan holidays" situation as against not just "Christianity" in the broad sense of how the word is nominally used many ways, but more specifically and clearly "true" or "biblical" Christianity. They (and others) are the ones who have many times called it that (either "true Christianity" or "biblical Christianity" etc) to make it more clear that it's not just a vague nominal or generic thing. You were wrong in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. (Not all churches in actuality claim to go so strictly by the Bible. There are things known as "liberal churches" who admit to not really following or even believing the Bible so closely etc.) And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or generally or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. As I said, even the other editor Grranbahr conceded the point in a way (if you read his words above), and even said that the word "true" would or could be put in, or could be better in a way. As I said to BlackCab, if consensus truly builds against this minor good-faith (and sourced) elaboration, of course I'll respect that. But I am reverting you, Jeffro, well after 24 hours, given that your argument does not really stand or hold well against an accurate elaboration, per context, and per JW's own writings on the matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- You were wrong though in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. It was per the sentence and context of how THEY word and view it. Remember the original sentence? It's from their point of view, that it's "biblical" or "true" Christianity that "pagan celebrations" are against. That's all that was meant. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. Also, you were wrong about "three separate editors". It's really only you and BlackCab. As I pointed out, Grranbahr conceded the point, and did NOT go on like you and BlackCab like this. It's only "two editors". Grranbahr even said that the word "true" could be warranted. So it's NOT three editors. He came (at least to some extent) to my view on this. Or at least not totally with yours. Also the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your edit may have been made in good faith, but it is still wrong. JWs believe that all religious groups professing to be Christian are 'judged by God'. They do not make a special concession for a subset of 'biblical Christians' or 'unbiblical Christians'. Their view is that anyone professing to be Christian (not 'biblical Christian') should not observe customs they consider to be pagan (though various observances with pagan origins—wedding rings, the Julian/Gregorian calendar, pinatas, etc.—are deemed acceptable by JWs). Grranbahr was the first editor to object to your edit, and has not conceded to your preferred wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- You were wrong though in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. It was per the sentence and context of how THEY word and view it. Remember the original sentence? It's from their point of view, that it's "biblical" or "true" Christianity that "pagan celebrations" are against. That's all that was meant. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. Also, you were wrong about "three separate editors". It's really only you and BlackCab. As I pointed out, Grranbahr conceded the point, and did NOT go on like you and BlackCab like this. It's only "two editors". Grranbahr even said that the word "true" could be warranted. So it's NOT three editors. He came (at least to some extent) to my view on this. Or at least not totally with yours. Also the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- You were wrong about "three separate editors". It's really only you and BlackCab. As I pointed out, Grranbahr conceded the point, and did NOT go on like you and BlackCab like this. It's only "two editors". Grranbahr even said that the word "true" could be warranted. So it's NOT three editors. He came (at least to some extent) to my view on this. Or at least not totally with yours.
- Look at what he wrote:
- ^^^^^^^^so if adding a descriptive adjective according to their believes, it may should have been "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as it is all about their consideration. True Christianity could also be a contrary description to nominal Christianity.^^^^^^^^
- So he conceded the point to some extent at least. I'm not saying that he was totally in agreement, but he was not so adamant against some descriptive term, as he offered the word "true" instead, and I conceded that to him, if you remember. (Also there's the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really.) Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Grranbahr suggested different wording, so there is still no concensus for the edit you keep saying you will restore. Additionally, Grranbahr's claim that 'true Christianity' is 'contrary' to 'nominal Christianity' is an inappropriate POV. As already stated, any particular group may have a particular interpretation or even an absense of a specific interpretation of what the Bible says. Different groups interpret the Bible in different ways, with varying degrees of latitude. Different groups say, "When the Bible says such-and-such, we interpret it this way" or, "When the Bible says such-and-such, we're not sure" (neither of which are 'unbiblical'). No Christian group says, "The Bible says such-and-such, but we completely reject what it says" (which would be 'unbiblical').--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- So he conceded the point to some extent at least. I'm not saying that he was totally in agreement, but he was not so adamant against some descriptive term, as he offered the word "true" instead, and I conceded that to him, if you remember. (Also there's the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really.) Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not insist on just that wording. As I pointed out already, I conceded Grranbahr's wording or suggestion. If you notice what I wrote higher above. But the point is that he himself conceded my overall point to some extent at least. I'm not saying that he was totally in agreement, but he was not so adamant against some descriptive term, as he offered the word "true" instead, and I conceded that to him, as you remember and notice. You're saying now though that even his suggestion or word was inappropriate POV. I agree that it's POV IF (and only if) the context was giving the impression that Wikipedia itself agreed with it. But it's only in the context of how JWs themselves are defining it and making it more precise. I do agree with your point that JWs believe that all (even nominal) "Christianity" should not be engaging in "pagan things". So I'll concede and yield on that basis. Although I do still say that "true" or "biblical" could theoretically have been left there, per context of the viewpoint in question, and for clarity or preciseness. Coulda gone either way is my point. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit Jeffro77 got a point when saying to claim true Christianity to be contrary to nominal Christianity, would be POV, as it indirectly claims that all nominal Christianity is false. That was not my intentions. My point about using "true Christianity" was ment to be used only if the sentence could be descriptive to reflect the JW view. JW doesn't neccessary always use true Christians about all the members of JW as individuals, but JW think of JW as a group as the only true Christians, and the term is also used for description of certain behaviour or in the purpose of internal education ("a true Christian wouldn't do [so], and a true Christian will be careful about doing [something else]").
Use of Biblical Christianity looks rather misleading here anyway, as JW does not claim no other Christian religions are using the Bible but they claim themselves to be in possition of the only true interpretation of the Bible. To reflect the JW view of the Christians living according to their interpretation of the Bible, their view of celebration of holidays with pagan background included, "true" is more descriptive than "Biblical", and JW is actually using the fact that other Christians are celebrating these holidays, as an argument for their claim of JW to be in possition of "the truth". My conclusion is, if the sentence is not ment to reflect the JW opinion of what Christians who are living according to a set of interpretations, it would be best to leave out any descriptive adjective, because of POV and redundance. If it could be read as reflecting the JW view of Christians living according to the JW interpretation of the Bible, "Biblical Christian" wouldn't fit in anyway, but a term as "true" may do. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. The thing is, the sentence is descriptive of JWs' view. But JWs do not [officially] believe that only JWs 'shouldn't' engage in celebrations they deem as pagan. Rather, they believe that any group professing to be Christian 'shouldn't' engage in such customs. (The fact that they do not attempt to enforce this on members of other groups is not relevant to their belief, nor even is the fact that various customs acceptable to JWs have pagan origins.) There are almost certainly no Christian groups that would be willing to say they are 'unbiblical'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- JW does not seek ecumenical connections with other Christians, and do not really separate other Christians (as they in general consider false Christians) from believers of non-Christian religions, as it all represents "false religion" (I haven't included very topic related views, like their interpretation of the prostitute in the Revelations). In the degree a JW consider that a non-JW person shouldn't engage in any actions, JW does not separate in particular other Christians from non Christians, and apart from pointing out where other Christian groups are practicing what they consider false teachings (true Christianity need false Christianity to exist), JW as a religion doesn't really engage in changing other religions believes, but seek to find individuals willing to give up what they consider false teachings. JW does very often make use of "true Christians" when adressing perosns living according to their teachings. As JW consider most non-JW Christians as "false Christians", it would be more correct to state that "[t]hey do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as not even JW themselves could or would claim that Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays not could be perfectly compatible with what they would describe as false Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your response about 'ecumenical connections' is not at all relevant here. As I already quite clearly stated, "The fact that they do not attempt to enforce this on members of other groups is not relevant to their belief". The fact remains that JWs consider certain pagan customs to be inappropriate for any group professing to be Christian (though other pagan customs are deemed to be okay). There's no need for us to incorporate a no true Scotsman fallacy into the lead by talking about 'true' Christians. (Their belief that only they are 'true Christians' is properly addressed in the relevant section.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- You claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses don't make any special distinctions about professed Christian groups among other 'false religions'. This is also incorrect. For example, they [officially] believe that "God’s judgments on Babylon the Great will especially be visited on Christendom, since she is the guiltiest part of that satanic conglomerate" (The Watchtower, 1 June 1991, page 23.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then we could remove the word "incompatible with Christianity". JW the religion doesn't endorse Christmas celebration, if done by non-christians either (Christmas is celebrated far outside the Christian world). I would challenge you to find a source which supports that JW does not find celebrating holidays suitable for other Christians, but suitable for non-Christians. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- By that rationale, we could list any of various celebrations, such as Ramadan, Hanuukkah or Kwanzaa. But you know (or reasonably should know) that Christmas is specifically listed because JWs are Christian and the sentence is talking about celebrations that are typically associated with Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I knew you couldn't. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is still no need for the adjective "true" in ... "they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity". JWs consider they are Christians. They do not celebrate Christmas, Easter etc because they believe those traditions have origins that are incompatible with Christians. The word "true" is simply redundant. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Grrahnbahr's snide comment, I knew you couldn't is apparently in reference to his 'challenge' to find a source about an entirely redundant point. I'm under no obligation to 'accept' any such 'challenge', because I've already indicated that the context of the statement in the lead does not require the distinction Grrahnbahr is trying to assert.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since Jeffro77 did find the point redundant, I've removed it. JW do not reject that other Christians are Christians, and does not reject that other groups selfidentifying themselves as Christians, do celebrate different holidays. To claim "[t]hey do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity", is pretty much the same as claiming JW thinks of people celebrating these holidays, as not Christian. That is a claim that needs to be sourced. JW (both the religion and the members) may consider people celebrating these holidays, for not to be true Christians, but to claim JW to consider these people not to be Christians, is taking it far. A source I've found, did though state that JW found some specific holidays to be "unbiblical" (from Norwegian ("ubibelsk", meaning literally "unbiblical", but could may be translated "not according to the Bible"). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Grrahnbahr's snide comment, I knew you couldn't is apparently in reference to his 'challenge' to find a source about an entirely redundant point. I'm under no obligation to 'accept' any such 'challenge', because I've already indicated that the context of the statement in the lead does not require the distinction Grrahnbahr is trying to assert.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is still no need for the adjective "true" in ... "they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity". JWs consider they are Christians. They do not celebrate Christmas, Easter etc because they believe those traditions have origins that are incompatible with Christians. The word "true" is simply redundant. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I knew you couldn't. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- By that rationale, we could list any of various celebrations, such as Ramadan, Hanuukkah or Kwanzaa. But you know (or reasonably should know) that Christmas is specifically listed because JWs are Christian and the sentence is talking about celebrations that are typically associated with Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then we could remove the word "incompatible with Christianity". JW the religion doesn't endorse Christmas celebration, if done by non-christians either (Christmas is celebrated far outside the Christian world). I would challenge you to find a source which supports that JW does not find celebrating holidays suitable for other Christians, but suitable for non-Christians. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- JW does not seek ecumenical connections with other Christians, and do not really separate other Christians (as they in general consider false Christians) from believers of non-Christian religions, as it all represents "false religion" (I haven't included very topic related views, like their interpretation of the prostitute in the Revelations). In the degree a JW consider that a non-JW person shouldn't engage in any actions, JW does not separate in particular other Christians from non Christians, and apart from pointing out where other Christian groups are practicing what they consider false teachings (true Christianity need false Christianity to exist), JW as a religion doesn't really engage in changing other religions believes, but seek to find individuals willing to give up what they consider false teachings. JW does very often make use of "true Christians" when adressing perosns living according to their teachings. As JW consider most non-JW Christians as "false Christians", it would be more correct to state that "[t]hey do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as not even JW themselves could or would claim that Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays not could be perfectly compatible with what they would describe as false Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, to all involved in this particular matter. I observed the situation. Ok this is what I did. I modified that statement this way now. And there really should be no objection to this, from anybody, on any real grounds. It's a fair compromise, at the end of sentence in question, put in "incompatible with the Bible"? The fuller statement reading this way: "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with the Bible." That's NOT "redundant" at all really in that sense, and it's definitely a sourced statement, per the JW view...and is an elaboration fitting. (But of course, true to form, BlackCab has to find some uptight problem with it, and disrespect a good-faith and accurate and sourced edit...so he/she reverted, so I reverted it back. There's NO justification or need to edit-war on THAT now...) Gabby Merger (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The WP policy is to NOT totally remove or revert something you have an issue with or don’t like, that is sourced, good-faith, and accurate, but to either leave alone and respect, or at most to maybe modify the wording. NOT to totally delete. If you don’t like words “incompatible with the Bible”, why not (for example) put it instead as “incompatible with Bible teachings” or something like that? Instead what you do is totally diss someone’s good faith and arguably allowable accurate edit or mod, for whatever uptight reason or rationale. Acting like you own this article. Why? Why edit-war over something like this?? This is a WIKI. Understand what that means. Something that is not vandalism or inaccurate (and this isn’t, because such language and wording is fitting and also used by JWs articles and writings themselves all the time), or not un-sourced (this modification is definitely sourced and referenced), should NOT be reverted so easily, or willy nilly, on Wikipedia. That’s arrogance and disrespect. To YOU "it's ridiculous"...as far as the wording....but maybe not to everyone else. Plus that’s wording used in JW’s own writings. The point is from the JW standpoint, and the wording in the sentence is pretty clear.
- THEY feel that pagan celebrations are "incompatible with the Bible"...or Bible teachings. And as far as it not being a "piece of legislation" and only a "religious book". Is that why the Bible has so many "LAWS" in it and regulations and rules? Yeah, it has been viewed as also a Law Book too, by certain churches, on how to act. That's why the very word "Torah" means "Law", etc? That's why the Psalms say "they did not obey My laws"? There's definitely a "law" aspect to the Bible, as anyone honest can see. You're wrong on all counts on this. Again, thought, that's regardless anyway, as it's only from the JW viewpoint anyway, that the sentence is making the statement. And you could find the wording meaningless all you want, but this is a WIKI...and you don't own the article...finally get that...and the WP policy to MAYBE MODIFY WORDING...not to totally remove and disrespect... Gabby Merger (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following acts are, presumably, "compatible with the Bible": stoning adulterers to death (God required it); shunning menstruation women (God required it); slaughtering entire populations (God did it); prostituting your wife (Abraham did it); committing incest (Lot did it with his eldest daughter); celebrating birthdays (Job did it); and practising polygamy (Abraham again). The phrase is nonsensical. BlackCab (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- That’s wording used in JW’s own writings. The point is from the JW standpoint, and the wording in the sentence is pretty clear. And obviously it's mainly from the NEW COVENANT standpoint, (like Corinthians etc), about "touch not the unclean thing" and "be ye separate" etc...but where there's no "stoning of witches" etc. To your Old Mosaic Law Covenant references. The point is that THEY feel that pagan celebrations are "incompatible with the Bible"...or Bible teachings. Again, you can feel the phrase is "non-sensical" all you want. According to WP policy and recommendation, you're to leave the edit alone. YOU DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE. And neither does Jeffro77 for that matter. You prove that you remove things for "I don't like" reasons all the time. It's just your opinion and not a documented fact that the phrase "pagan celebrations incompatible with the Bible" is so meaningless or ridiculous. (None of what you mentioned, by the way, are "pagan things"...also by the way, you're wrong when you assume Job "celebrated birthdays". That's not what it says in Job... It says he celebrated "his day", but it's not clear that it was an actual "birthday celebration"...sidepoint.) You can find personal uptight problems with the phrasing all you want. Matters not one iota. You're NOT to remove it, as you don't own this article, and you have no right to disrespect good-faith accurate sourced things, and cause disturbance and annoyance like this, especially over something so minor, things that are stated in the sources and writings themselves, with that very same phrasing. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- And the following things would, presumably, be "incompatible with the Bible": eating bacon, wearing a garment containing both wool and linen, making a statue, women teaching, women running a company, women wearing a short haircut ... Just more examples, Gabby, showing it's a meaningless statement. That really has to go. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You keep bringing up Old Mosaic Law Covenant things when that's totally irrelevant both to the actual point, and also to the issue that not one of those things you mentioned (and have problems with) are "pagan celebrations". Again, it's how JWs phrase things in their own writings. This isn't necessary, to go on like this. But no way will this edit go. Not without serious discussion and BIG consensus. You're turning this into an edit war, because you're used to having your way on this article. But the edit stays. You revert, I revert back. Never violating 3RR, though. Regardless of what you or Jeffro do. You love to bully on this article? For years now. Aint gonna happen here. You need to learn manners and respect. And lose the arrogance. And learn Wikipedia policy.
- It’s irrelevant whether YOU feel the wording is “ridiculous” or “meaningless” based on your obvious disdain for both JWs and for the Bible itself. What matters is that it’s the wording used by said party in question, and is sourced, a valid good-faith modification, and what also matters is that in those cases, you’re to leave the edit alone. Period. And to understand that you have no ownership of this article, or any other, on Wikipedia. Good-faith and accurate sourced additions are to be respected, regardless of your personal uptight feelings on these matters. And to not cause anger and edit wars. You don’t understand how you violate WP principles when you do things like this.
- Wikipedia policy:
- “but if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
- Also:
- "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."
- Gabby Merger (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per user's talk page. The point is I don't necessarily agree that it is "clumsy or silly language" at all. You say that. And maybe some others. But many other people (in and out of WP editing) would find the phrasing fine, and understandable. Hence why I said it IS "I don't like" on your part. Because you're not gonna deny ("plucking" phrase or not) that JWs (and even others) have worded things just that way, in general. Such as "incompatible with Bible teachings" or "out of harmony with Scripture", etc. I'm sorry, but having "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" is not all that "shitty", as you put it, or would not necessarily make the article so. Especially in the context there, that JWs don't just feel pagan things should be avoided on their own basis, or on the basis of the Koran, but by what they feel is stuff that would not line up right with Scripture. (Such as the Corinthians and Isaiah stuff, etc). Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- After claiming several times that his/her wording is "sourced" ([1][2], this user has now backtracked to say that the Watch Tower Society "have worded things just that way, in general." [3] And later, "'sourced' in that it IS something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know." [4] All too vague, and the wording is very poor. BlackCab (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's NOT a "probably" situation, and it's not an "assumption". They (and others) have said things just like that, either verbatim, or very similar. Not sure what the big deal or problem is. (Also, you yourself said that it didn't have to be exactly "mirrored", remember?) I already explained how it's correct, or at least how it can be understood, and how it's meant, the phrase "pagan celebrations not IN LINE with the Bible's overall drift or teaching or commands", etc. When I say it is "sourced", I'm not saying that there's a specific ref right after the sentence, saying it in that way, per se. But "sourced" in that it is something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know. No "assumption" necessary. And whether the actual addition at the end is so "necessary" is not the point. It's a valid mod, no matter what you think, or the stuff you went on about "menstruation" or "stoning witches". JWs (and some other similar groups, such as the Armstrongites, etc) believe that the holidays etc are pagan in background and not in harmony with Scripture. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- After claiming several times that his/her wording is "sourced" ([1][2], this user has now backtracked to say that the Watch Tower Society "have worded things just that way, in general." [3] And later, "'sourced' in that it IS something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know." [4] All too vague, and the wording is very poor. BlackCab (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per user's talk page. The point is I don't necessarily agree that it is "clumsy or silly language" at all. You say that. And maybe some others. But many other people (in and out of WP editing) would find the phrasing fine, and understandable. Hence why I said it IS "I don't like" on your part. Because you're not gonna deny ("plucking" phrase or not) that JWs (and even others) have worded things just that way, in general. Such as "incompatible with Bible teachings" or "out of harmony with Scripture", etc. I'm sorry, but having "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" is not all that "shitty", as you put it, or would not necessarily make the article so. Especially in the context there, that JWs don't just feel pagan things should be avoided on their own basis, or on the basis of the Koran, but by what they feel is stuff that would not line up right with Scripture. (Such as the Corinthians and Isaiah stuff, etc). Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"Incompatible with the Bible" is far too vague, the celebrations in question are never mentioned in the Bible at all, and JW publications never say those celebrations are specifically 'incompatible with the Bible'. I have restored the wording that is more directly related to what JWs actually believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- first off, JWs have said it that way, or things like "not in harmony with Scripture" etc. And secondly, if you find it "too vague", then you still should not remove something, because YOU find it "too vague" or not satisfactory...but instead maybe reword where it's not as "vague". Per WP policy on NOT reverting.
- Wikipedia policy:
- “but if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
- Also:
- "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."
- Gabby Merger (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your objection here doesn't apply, as your edit doesn't add anything notable to the statement and isn't supported by any sources. JW literature doesn't make a point of saying these celebrations are 'incompatible' with the Bible. Your continued objections about a trivial and inaccurate point without any concensus are becoming disruptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Modified wording again
I just changed it a bit...with better wording, it's clearer...less "vague"...to "origins that they find incompatible with the Scriptural teachings." Though I'm sure you'll both find problems with that too. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're just making it more wordy without actually saying anything extra. Your change is not an improvement and is less accurate than the previous wording about their beliefs about practices that are acceptable for Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hence why I said what I said at the end, and why your revert will now get reverted by me again. You and BlackCab don't own this article, and you're not to impose your personal tastes and hang-ups on a wiki, against WP policy. Your constant bullying on this article is not to be tolerated. Stop edit-warring. If REAL consensus is ever reached on this, of course I yield. But you and BlackCab do NOT constitute consensus. So you need to stop this already. Seriously. You don't own this article. Also, I have no real problem with the "for Christians" or "Christianity". My original point was that the word "Christianity" though was itself a bit too "vague", and broad, and general, as there is such a thing as just "nominal Christianity". My only modification was to make the point more about the Bible itself, and how JWs view pagan celebrations as specifically against THAT. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- No one agrees with your edit, Gabby. Accept and move on. BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You and Jeffro do NOT constitute "everybody". You both like to think you run this article, and make up "consensus". But that nonsense has nothing to do with actual Wikipedia policy. You're full of yourselves, on this matter, is the problem. If 5 or 6 editors had a big hang-up with that modification, that's one thing. But just you and Jeffro? No, not quite. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that additional users addressing the topic might develop a better consensus you might consider an article WP:RFC or other valid dispute resolution avenues. You obviously aren't acheiving anything by your current course of action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, by the way, to Jeffro77... I made a slight mistake in the wording. I did not mean to have it as "incompatible with THE Scriptural teachings". I meant to have it as "with Scriptural teachings" without the word "the". Regardless though, your removal is unwarranted and against WP policy and recommendation. To "re-word" not "revert". You and BlackCab don't seem to ever want to go that route, though, which is why both of you are so often in dispute pages regarding this article. I'm not the only editor who has had to deal with this type of thing. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of an essay (not even a guideline) is not policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a problem: reasoned objections to your edits are dismissed as "a big hang-up" and editors who disagree with you are described as "full of themselves". I'm not sure these discussions can lead anywhere fruitful. BlackCab (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you're saying that Wikipedia's policy, as a general guideline, is not to modify wording over just willy nilly completely removing? No...that IS the "recommendation" I said. And "essay" is all that Wikipedia guidelines (to a greater or lesser extent) are anyway. As this whole thing is really a "wiki" in the first place, set up by the "community". But the point is that "I don't like" is a real policy, and is violated arguably by both of you. There's nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with "pagan origins they find incompatible with Scriptural teachings"...yet you and BlackCab (if one of you does or says one thing, it seems the other automatically will agree) find uptight fault with it. And diss good-faith accurate edits, simply because of personal arguments of "too wordy". You can find it "too wordy", personally, no problem. You're allowed to feel that way, of course. But you're NOT to impose that on someone else's work...so willy nilly, and disrespect their additions and edits...against WP recommendation.
- Also, by the way, to Jeffro77... I made a slight mistake in the wording. I did not mean to have it as "incompatible with THE Scriptural teachings". I meant to have it as "with Scriptural teachings" without the word "the". Regardless though, your removal is unwarranted and against WP policy and recommendation. To "re-word" not "revert". You and BlackCab don't seem to ever want to go that route, though, which is why both of you are so often in dispute pages regarding this article. I'm not the only editor who has had to deal with this type of thing. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that additional users addressing the topic might develop a better consensus you might consider an article WP:RFC or other valid dispute resolution avenues. You obviously aren't acheiving anything by your current course of action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You and Jeffro do NOT constitute "everybody". You both like to think you run this article, and make up "consensus". But that nonsense has nothing to do with actual Wikipedia policy. You're full of yourselves, on this matter, is the problem. If 5 or 6 editors had a big hang-up with that modification, that's one thing. But just you and Jeffro? No, not quite. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- No one agrees with your edit, Gabby. Accept and move on. BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hence why I said what I said at the end, and why your revert will now get reverted by me again. You and BlackCab don't own this article, and you're not to impose your personal tastes and hang-ups on a wiki, against WP policy. Your constant bullying on this article is not to be tolerated. Stop edit-warring. If REAL consensus is ever reached on this, of course I yield. But you and BlackCab do NOT constitute consensus. So you need to stop this already. Seriously. You don't own this article. Also, I have no real problem with the "for Christians" or "Christianity". My original point was that the word "Christianity" though was itself a bit too "vague", and broad, and general, as there is such a thing as just "nominal Christianity". My only modification was to make the point more about the Bible itself, and how JWs view pagan celebrations as specifically against THAT. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP recommends to Only revert vandalism or truly inaccurate things, etc. Not wordings that you and your partner don't happen to like. As I said, I respect these two things, whether I agree with what is going on or not: 3RR and real "consensus". If real genuine consensus (not just you and BlackCab, because given the history, that's really not nearly enough), has this much of an issue or (to be frank) a hang-up over these things, then I back off. I respect, though don't agree. I know what's what. But "no own" means something, and you're fooling yourselves if you both think that you have not violated that majorly on this specific article over the months and years. And that's just not cool or fair to other editors who mean well, and do well. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is fairly evident that you're just arguing for the sake of it. I have already directed you to appropriate dispute resolution avenues. It's also evident that you don't understand that essays are not policies, guidelines or formal recommendations. Further, you're arguing for wording that simply is not an improvement, and is not found in JW publications, despite your repeated claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- And it is fairly obvious that you'll rudely dismiss sincere points and not consider anything, and that you and BlackCab will never change. I didn't start this "argument", either. You and BlackCab are incapable of leaving edits alone that you personally don't like. But what I said before still stands. I respect 3RR and genuine consensus on Talk pages. It's up to YOU if you want to take it to a "dispute page". You want to bypass getting real consensus on the article talk because you and BlackCab like to think you already reached it (as if you and BlackCab are the only contributers to ever answer to?) Get real consensus on here etc, then I back off. Also, the wording is in JW publications, but even if you don'tfind it quite like that, even BlackCab said that it does not have to exactly "mirror" word-for-word there. But you'll deny that JWs have said that pagan celebrations are against the Bible? Really? This is unnecessarily edit-warring and bickering, when you feel that this article is being edited in ways you both personally don't like, and you both try to control and own it. Not cool, and not kosher. The wording "pagan origins which they feel is against Scriptural teachings" will be restored sooner or later. I'm busy now though, as I don't spend all day on Wikipedia. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is fairly evident that you're just arguing for the sake of it. I have already directed you to appropriate dispute resolution avenues. It's also evident that you don't understand that essays are not policies, guidelines or formal recommendations. Further, you're arguing for wording that simply is not an improvement, and is not found in JW publications, despite your repeated claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP recommends to Only revert vandalism or truly inaccurate things, etc. Not wordings that you and your partner don't happen to like. As I said, I respect these two things, whether I agree with what is going on or not: 3RR and real "consensus". If real genuine consensus (not just you and BlackCab, because given the history, that's really not nearly enough), has this much of an issue or (to be frank) a hang-up over these things, then I back off. I respect, though don't agree. I know what's what. But "no own" means something, and you're fooling yourselves if you both think that you have not violated that majorly on this specific article over the months and years. And that's just not cool or fair to other editors who mean well, and do well. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)