User talk:AndrewXJW

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - You have a message on Talk:Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society.

Thank you. I had assumed signatures were automatic. Here I try it: AndrewXJW 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments et. al.[edit]

I appreciate your balanced tones in discussions. Note, however, that the question of editors' honesty was brought up at the outset on Talk:Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society, and suggest the use of, or at least the blatant appearance of, a "bait and switch" tactic. This is inflammatory and suggests that a less than forthright motive in others' editing is suspected, regardless of the intent. KEY POINT: It is the perception of one's reaction that paints a picture as to one's own motives in the minds of other editors. (The use of the word "tactic" in other articles is likewise perceivably inflammatory.) This is why the Assume good faith policy is so important. Also noteworthy is the assume the assumption of good faith theory. If the changes were made with a positive focus on the reasoning, there would have been no inciteful language that would even trigger the mention of WP:AGF. If all benefit of the doubt is given and positive reasonings are used in edits and edit summaries, regardless of the rection of others, a solid ground will be be available to make a point.

This is not to say that a Wikipedian cannot have an opinion, however strong. What its does insist upon, though, is that one sticks to the strictly factual presentation of information. The edits made to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses were not really well received, due to a bit of conclusion-drawing (at least the result had the strong language of a conclusion), and the lack of multiple sources. One or two guys, or websites, is not really that strong of an academic foundation. While it is generally understood that these ideas are very strongly held, this does not mean that they hold enough weight in the larger picture and merit the amount of detail often given them by such-minded contributors.

Sincerely, CobaltBlueTony 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On counting the references to seperate resources from my material which has since been deleted, I found 8 external web sites, 3 unrelated Wikipedia articles, and 3 books or magazines. This makes 14 different resources. This is factually incongruous with your assertion that my material lacked multiple sources or was based on the ideas of "one or two guys". This factual error appears to indicate that you were mistaken in your analysis of my contribution. Thank you for spending the time, however. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Issues - Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

I see that your addition to the article was quickly deleted. I am not sure if you are still working on having it included or if you were planning to give up on the issue. In case it is the former I have included a few points you might find helpful (if not - feel free to ignore).

The biggest problem was the fact that most of the references were not specifically related to Jehovah's Witnesses. What you need to include the information and to be able to argue for its inclusion is some references that do link the controlling tactics to Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are references from 7 different sources in my table on freedom of mind which are specifically about how the named tactic is used in the Witness context (at least one for each tactic). AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably run up against claims that any websites containing this information are just Joe Blow voicing his opinion and not a credible source. The Wikipedia guideline regarding whether a source is credible or not is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You will notice that the opening states that an opinion is not a fact but that a certain group holds a certain opinion is a fact. As long as you are specific that such and such a group holds the view such and such you should be right. Bulletin boards and blogs cannot be used as a source at all - see the section on self-published sources.

In all cases I have used language similar to "it is said that", not "it is a fact that", so I believe I have met this requirement. Thanks for helping me make sure. I do not cite blogs in any case. Since blogs are not acceptable, I will not suggest one of my external links previously suggested for "Resources Critical". Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To find printed, published references a good starting point (apart from the library itself!) is Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!” , the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project and the University of Michigan's Making of America which allow you to search the full text of thousands of books online.

I have already cited printed books and magazines, including the Witnesses own literature. Lack of such material does not appear to be the reason my contributions are being deleted. But I appreciate this resources cited above and may use it in the future. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just briefly by doing this I have found that two books deal quite specifically with the issues you are referring to. These are "Jehovah Lives in Brooklyn: Jehovah's Witnesses as a Model of Fundamentalism" by Richard Francis and "Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion) by Don Cameron. The first refers to both love bombing and Cognitive Dissonance.

I have already cited "Captives of a Concept". I will add "Jehovah Lives in Brooklyn". Thanks very much! Please look at my contribution (after I restore it today) and indicate where this reference would most appropriately be placed. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to change the layout of the information a little. Perhaps concentrate more on control tactics used by Jehovah's Witnesses as laid out in your sources rather than follow the research of psychologists who do not relate their work specifically to Jehovah's Witnesses. If there are any sections that are particularly controversial, rather than say it yourself - quote a referenced source. This way what is said cannot be changed and should not be removed. Be careful of the language that is used. It may be best to avoid the use of the word "cult" as it stirs up contention like nothing else.

Remember, the page is called "Controversies..." so it is to be expected that it might stir up contention. I don't see how that is avoidable with the topic of this page, but can only assume all contributors will be concerned with fact over preference. Can you suggest an alternate word which carries the same meaning as "cult"? I don't know of any. If you feel "high-control group" is equivalent, that could be substituted most anywhere except in the phrase "cult mind control". Also using direct quotes from published works rather than a synopsis would be acceptable. However, these are examples of fine-tuning that could be made once we get past this stage of having entire sections deleted, if I understand the process. Those who share my concern about the necessity of these sections could collaborate to fine tune once we get past this deleting-entire-sections behavior. Again, please advise if I am missing something in terms of how the procedure is supposed to work. Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that if you truly believe this information is important and needs to be included that you do spend the time finding the appropriate sources. I do not ususally post such a cumbersome section on a person's talk page. Sorry for taking up so much room. Good luck! Lucy 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize, your support is wonderful! I have spent a great deal of time finding appropriate resources, and have already provided far more resources of the required type than my critics have given credit for; yet who can prove this to himself when the entire section gets deleted for no apparent reason?

I have also noticed the removal of your contributions to the Controversies page. While your desire to bring the truth out is admirable, I would have to say that thus far the way the information is presented seems a little unencyclopaedic, and more "original research"-looking, as someone has said already.

I invite collaboration, and would like an opportunity to apply this advice through collaboration. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to take a different approach so that the information stays there rather than getting deleted. First, I would forget about the first section about family ties. It is covered in the "treatment of members who dissociate" section. If you feel that there is not enough said there, you can add to it (carefully).

Well, I would like to do this. However, the issue of deteriorated family ties is much broader than just "treatment of those who disassociate" because the effect applies even where no one has disassociated. This is why I thought it required a seperate paragraph, which does reference the other paragraph rather than repeating. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second part, "freedom of mind", I would possibly revise to "Cult Behaviours" or something similar. Yes, this will stir up emotions on the part of some, but if you can make it clear that you are just presenting the controversy as it exists separate to you, it is justified. Imagine that you are a neutral third party, from the outside looking in. Write like you have no opinion, essentially.

Very good, I will make this change immediately. Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also lose the table and present it in paragraph form. It will look less like original research that way.

I don't know how to apply this while remaining readable and providing both the "general context" and "Witness context" aspects of each tactic which seem necessary based on Wikipedia requirements and logical understanding. I prefer to reword in order to bring closer into conformity with requirements. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it might be better to do something similar to what Lucy did and post what you intend on posting in the article on the talk page, and perhaps let Lucy or myself edit it from there. People generally won't delete something directly from the talk page. BenC7 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Collaboration is most welcome! I will do just this way. Thank you so much! Please see the talk page. AndrewXJW 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom