User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2022

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

A cup of tea for you!

Cheers; finally getting somewhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So what's going on Paul Grundy

I have a suggestion. Is it possible to post a "critical eye" article as to why you're not with the mother of zac, and never WAS married to her? Or what ever happened to the wife you were with while getting Zack's mom impregnated?

Inquiring minds wanna know jeffro Grundy. 2601:500:8300:A17:D856:249:82AB:B49F (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not Paul Grundy. Irrespective, you will be reported for inappropriate behaviour if you make any further insinuations about my identity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine

Concerning the article "Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine", I tried to enhance this text:

• "2020: The 'king of the north' of Daniel 11:25–26, previously identified as Aurelian, redefined as the German Empire. The 'king of the south' for the same verses, previously identified as Zenobia, redefined as "Britain".[284]".

I made 2 clarifications, added 1 doctrine change, and 3 correct URLs (original text in square brackets):

• "[The … identified as Aurelian, redefined as the German Empire], and after WW2 the Soviet Union, followed by "Russia and its allies". [The … identified as Zenobia, redefined as Britain], and from WW1 onwards also the United States (forming together the Anglo-American World Power). So, no more speculation about who were kings of North and South “from sometime in the 2nd century to the second half of the 19th century"

1) A doctrine change: The Watchtower doesn't count any rulers from the time of c. 150- c. 1870 as the kings of the north and the south anymore. 2) clarification: Zenobia is Zenobia and not redefined as Britain. 3) clarification: The article's text leaves the impression that the German empire is the king of the north when there is a chain of rulership. Now Russia is that king. 4) In the Watchtower, Aurelian and Zenobia were only examples of the rulers of c. 150-1870, not pivotal ones as in Wikipedia. I think misleading the reader is not so good as clarifying the text.

So why my all text was deleted, Jeffro77? You explained: "Undo - the additional info isn't what was changed in 2020, and is already referenced correctly as a 2018 change" – Yes, everyone sees Russia is mentioned in both, and so it is easy to understand that is not meant to be a change. But if you mention only that the "king of the north" was Aurelian and is (now) redefined as the German Empire, you may wonder what about all other kings between Aurelian and Germany and is the Soviet Union anymore in this chain.

One must read article text and source URLs carefully before one makes a quick erase. So can you accept this new text, Jeff, before you hit delete once again? It has also 1 right URL:

• Zenobia and Aurelian are no more counted as the kings of the south and the north, in the same way as all other rulers are not counted “from sometime in the 2nd century to the second half of the 19th century"

Why it's so hard for newcomers in Wikipedia? 2001:2003:F64C:2800:4D92:768C:60CC:F5E0 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The article presents changes. The view that Russia is the 'king of the north' wasn't a change in 2020.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added mention about the abandoned view of identifying kings for the intervening period.

Your 'clarification' "Zenobia is Zenobia and not redefined as Britain" is unintelligible and not a reflection of actual article content.

Your 'clarification' about supposedly implying that the 'king' remained as 'the German Empire' was wrong, because the statement in question explicitly refers to their (previous) interpretation of verses 25 and 26.

Your claim that "Aurelian and Zenobia were only examples of the rulers of c. 150-1870, not pivotal ones as in Wikipedia" is incorrect. Their 1999 book, Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy (chapter 14), applied verses 25 and 26 specifically to Aurelian and Zenobia, and did not offer them only as 'examples' of 'kings' depicted by those verses. They provided no verses from Daniel for their interpretations of other leaders during the period, which they instead described as "unnecessary details about the breakdown of the Roman Empire, which stretched over centuries". (It should be noted, though, that until 1958, they did apply specific verses from Daniel to identify other 'kings' during that extended period, reflecting their original Adventist interpretation. Those changes are already reflected in the article for the relevant year.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You are quite right. I apologize. The explanation of verses 25 and 26 was crucial. In the May 2020 Watchtower, these verses were applied to Britain and Germany, as Wikipedia mentions. The Watchtower did not mention that these same verses were applied in the book "Pay Attention" to Zenobia and Aurelian (p. 240-241), and not others. The magazine misled readers and me by saying that they would no longer need to be "listed" (Article 19, page 7) as kings of the north and south. So pivotal Zenobia and Aurelian were moved to "unnecessary details" in Watchtower terms.

One more funny point. The Watchtower wrote that what we "read" about these kings "could not apply" to the rulers in the period of about 150-1870. They did not mention the word "anymore." But Dan 11:21-24 is still applied to Tiberius because he ruled AD 14-37 (Pay attention p.234-239). In explaining Dan 11:23 (Because of their allying themselves with him he will carry on deception and actually come up and become mighty by means of a little nation.), Attention-book says: "Members of the Roman Senate had constitutionally ‘allied themselves’ with Tiberius, and he formally depended upon them. But he was deceptive, actually becoming “mighty by means of a little nation.” That little nation was the Roman Praetorian Guard, encamped close to Rome’s walls."

What a mess. Once again the Watchtower didn't apologize their wrong explanations, but it continues to bluff even those that are not witnesses. Thanks again, next time I must read more carefully. 2001:2003:F64B:CA00:CD73:850B:9734:EBD (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, changes are often described as ‘clarifications’ even when the new interpretation is entirely different, and old views that were at first branded as ‘crystal clear’ are simply abandoned. It is essential to their (actually Adventist) interpretation about Tiberius because they believe Daniel contains prophecies about Jesus, so they are kind of stuck with that incorrect interpretation. In reality, the content of Daniel relates to the Seleucid period up until the reign of Antiochus IV, with Babylon used as a metaphor.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Reversion at Shunning

• Moved to Talk:Shunning#Reversion

Regarding your reversion here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunning&diff=1110869647&oldid=1110866737 I think it's helpful for readers if a comprehensive list of related articles is included in the See Also section, instead of having to skim through the article to find the one they are looking for, especially since there is generally only one link hidden somewhere in the article. But I've learned not to care how Wikipedia is run anymore, so whatever. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the link you added to the section is already in the lead of the article, so it's not as though it's particularly hard to find. More generally, if someone is already looking for something in particular, they'll probably just search for that article. I'll stick with what the guidelines for the See Also section say, but other editors are welcome to discuss further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness "discipline" page

You are white-washing the "truth" about Jehovah's Wirnesses. I have no personal grudge whatsoever but believe people should know the truth about this religion, not the white-washed version. There are multiple recordings on the internet from actual "elder tribunal meetings" where the only "sin" is the congregant not affirming their belief in the eight-member governing body being "the representation of Jehovah", no longer accepting 100% of the doctrine, or even expressing concern over hearing the recorded transcripts of Australia's investigation of the religion's cover-up of child abuse and governing body member Geoffrey Jackson's recorded deposition. These people are disfellowshipped for apostasy and yes unless they are a "wife in subjection to her husband" or a minor living at home are shunned by their family. There are multiple videos published by Jehavah's Witnesses themselves depicting teens (one can only assume they are not minors) being asked to leave home and the parents refusing to even accept a phone call from her. This has lead to serious mental health issues and even suicide of disfellowshipped members in many cases. These are important facts you are glossing over. Are you a JW not wanting people to know the truth about this religion or ignorant of these facts? GiaHova (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The body of the article contains all the pertinent information. You want to sensationalise the lead because you feel strongly about the subject. That is not appropriate on Wikipedia.—Jeffro77 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No not sensationalizing at all. It is simply not accurate to say someone who sins will be shunned by the congregation and leave off the fact that shunning will also be by family members (much more psychologically effective/ harmful than being shunned by a congregation) or to not include the fact that not accepting all the doctrine and governing body as Jehovah's representation on earth and/or simply no longer wanting to be JW is considered serious sin. Just as in college essay writing, the intro should accurately summarize the theme. I tried to incorporate your suggestions each time and "de-sensationalize/de-emote the writing. You really should accept my suggestion because it is truth. Some people only read a paragraoh or two and if so, you have mis-led them. Why not this then. Take off will be shunned by "the congregation" and simply say "will be shunned." Now you have a brief, accurate statement and will more accurately not be excluding a very important fact. PS you really ought to take the time to research and listen to actual recorded "tribunal" hearings, many of which can easily be found online. You will come to understand that I speak truth with no sensationalism whatsoever. GiaHova (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The lack of concision in your responses further demonstrates my point. Calm down. The body of the article already covers the relevant points without the sensationalism.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm very calm lol. Your unwillingness to bend one iota tells me everything I need to know about your relationship with JW's..prob an elder you. GiaHova (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@GiaHova: the person you're talking to is literally an atheist and they're pretty known on here for their contributions to articles relating to all sorts of Christian stuff. You might also want to assume good faith rather than accuse them of being an elder (even if they were, your point would be moot). You clearly feel strongly about them and want to add info already covered in the body in a sensationalized manner. This is unacceptable and blatant POV pushing. — Python Drink (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Python Drink: I can kind of understand how someone not familar with how things work on Wikipedia could leap to that conclusion when a lot of the sources cited in the article (specifically in the serious sins section) are from Shepherd the Flock of God, a handbook that only elders are meant to see. I've never read the book myself but I am aware that it exists. I will also say that isn't nessecarily POV-pushing or sensalization if written in a neutral way. It seems like GiaHova is trying and maybe they could be leaded in the right direction? I think a valid argument could be made that including information about being obligated to be shunned by family is also relevant as mutiple reliable sources focus on this: [1][2][3], etc. I think this conversation could be moved to the talk page of the article in question? Clovermoss (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Clevermoss: I guess you have some merit. Go ahead and bring it up on the article talk page if you want — Python Drink (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem with the editor’s latest removal of ‘the congregation’ in the lead sentence, but it isn’t necessary to elaborate there about the nuances of which family members are shunned (and without the nuances is a misleading simplification). The earlier repeatedly attempted phrasing by GiaHova was very definitely sensationalism, and a crusade about what readers ‘need to know’ isn’t what Wikipedia articles are for. It isn’t particularly difficult for interested readers to read the relevant paragraph in the body of the article for the specifics. It could be suitable to include mention of family members in the sentence about criticism of the practice in the lead, which could be supported by sources like those included above.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ I already started a section at the article’s Talk page. Your attempt at a personal attack is irrelevant but will be considered if your behaviour doesn’t improve. Thanks.—Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@python drink..you have a very valid point about JW resources being used as primary source. Anyone who has not been part of the JW's doesn't understand how there are two sets of info they put out ..the "white-washed version" for the public and what really happens. I remain with my opinion that it is 100% misleading to give the impression anywhere at anytime in this "encyclopedia" that shunning is only by the congregation. Not omly wrong to convey this to the public but especially damaging to those who have suffered the psychological consequences of being shunned by family to read this simplification. Done fighting the "Wiki gods " You win GiaHova (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've said before, I understand why you're upset, GiaHova. I agree with you that there should be information about how shunning isn't simply by the congregation but is also required of family. I think it's something that's important to clarify from a non-JW perspective. Please try to avoid saying stuff like "Wiki gods", it can be detrimental to the argument you're trying to make. Focus your criticism on the content and not people. But please understand that it is actually possible to make changes on Wikipedia, there's the talk page of the article in question and requests for outside opionions that can be made. If you want, I can try to help you learn about these things, if you're interested.

Also pinging Python Drink because it doesn't work the way you tried it. Clovermoss (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already indicates that 'shunning isn't simply by the congregation but is also required of family', and it is not the case that there has been any attempt at the article to 'hide' that fact, though I have no problem with discussion about improving the article. If GiaHova continues to make any insinuations about my supposed motivations or what the editor imagines to be a lack of understanding of the subject (which has continued today[4]), GiaHova will be reported to admins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Pastor Russell

Regarding your undoing of my edit on Pastor Russell's entry, if you can locate a better source to confirm the vandalism and removal of the pyramid structure near Russell's grave, go find it and edit my source citation if necessary. I did find out JW forum talking about it and posting the pictures, and though I conceded that a better source has to be newspaper or even media, but you'd better know this---NOT everything happens on this earth will be published in media, and sometimes media has its own bias too. Therefore, if you just simply undo my editing, but without a better source, then I'd say "Go find a better one and show me!" Bf0325 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You won’t make many friends with trash like “you'd better know this”. If you find an appropriate source, add it. It’s not up to me to find good sources to replace your bad ones.—Jeffro77 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:SOLVE and WP:VOLUNTEER—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)