User talk:Dtbrown

Welcome!

Hello, Dtbrown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! →Journalist >>talk<< 03:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses.

Dtbrown, thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses! You've made some great contributions already so it will be great to have your vote on the proposed restructure. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

email

Just wondering about the subject of your email to me. - CobaltBlueTony 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

last JW edit

The last edit seemed childish and supercilious. Taken seriously, JWs stipulate that they cannot say what, if anything, will be standing after Armageddon. But it's an unnecesary point. - CobaltBlueTony 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I didn't put that in but took it out. Dtbrown 18:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call for a vote

Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting JW Main Article

I noticed in the history page of the JW main article that vandalism has increased quite a lot in the last few days. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of the Three Revert Rule. Recently after such a spate of vandalism on the Controversies article we had an editor blocked because he inadvertently reverted the article more than three times in one day due to consistent vandal attacks. Please be aware that if you have already reverted the article three times during a 24 hour period, you may have to ask another editor to revert the vandalism or face a possible block. I will try to keep an eye on it also but I am not here all that often. Perhaps you could get some of the other regular editors to Watchlist and revert also.

Alternatively, if the article is facing heavy vandalism you can request it to be semi-protected for a period. This seems to be working well for the Controversies article. (Semi-protected means that those not logged on or those with an account less than 4 days old cannot edit the article). The amount of vandalism does have to be pretty constant for them to protect the article though. Just thought you might want to know. Lucy 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put blood related paragraph

Where do you suggest that the paragraph you deleted is put? Is the Jehovah's Witnesses and governments section or page appropriate?

Quote: "The Jehovah's Witnesses are often at odds with medical and medicolegal doctrine because of their no-transfusion stance. For example, throughout Australia there is legislation allowing for children (those under 18) to receive blood transfusion without the consent of the child or his/her parents, if a doctor considers it to be necessary."

It seems relevant somewhere if it is sourced or course. Ansell 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note about this on the talk page. Dtbrown 08:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood transfusions

I put my paragraph into the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood page instead. The correct citation in Australian Guide to Legal Citation format is:

See, eg, Human Tissue Act 1982 (Vic) s 24.

wow, quite the list

Thats pretty extensive. I'm not sure where it would go exactly, but we'll figure it out. :) nice work. joshbuddy^talk 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I decided to cut it back some as it was really way too long. If you think it needs further trimming, go for it! Dtbrown 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz sound clip

Did you listen to the clip? He does not say what the comment says he does. The link should be replaced or removed.George 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw what you put in for comment and it looks appropriate.George 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Ever think of adding something to your user page so it isn't always a red link? Even just a #REDIRECT [[User talk:Dtbrown]] would keep my eye from twitching. ;-< Just a thought. :-) - CobaltBlueTony 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deity of Christ

According to the Scott Foresman Advanced Dictionary 1983 it says under deity: 1 one of the gods worshiped by a people or a tribe;god or goddess. 2 divine nature; being a god 3the Deity JW do accept that Jesus was and is divine. He has divine nature and is considered "a god" thus the definition applies to Jesus. However number 3 would not apply. Hope that helps. Johanneum 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on Jehovah's Witnesses page

In the light of past and possible future abuse and vandalism, I'd just like to suggest locking this topic once it has been confirmed that all information is unbiased and correct for the purpose of ensuring reliable, accurate information. Also, under the "Critical Views" section where it mentions Raymond Franz's views, please be careful in the wording not to pass his claims as truth - as they are indeed biased. Lastly, I'd just like to sincerely commend those who have spent the time in making sure the JW page is completely accurate. Keep up the good work. --Shaun77 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source quote removal

Can you please explain why you removed the quote from Organized to Do Jehovah's Will on the JWs and the UN page? That quote is not favorable nor opposed to the JW position on organizational attachments, it is the JW position on organizational attachments. It should be on that page. Respectfully, Evident 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I already did that here [1] As it was worded it seemed to be off topic. As I said I'm open to others' views. Dtbrown 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Rite Catholic Churches

Hello from a fellow Eastern Catholic! I'm fed up of the article being at the current name. There's no corresponding Latin Rite Catholic Church article, so it's entirely unfair. I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but is there anything we can do about it? --InfernoXV 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. The proper term is "Eastern Catholic Churches." That's what they call themselves, and that's how the Pope currently refers to them. Let's revisit this issue. Majoreditor 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on my talk page

The content was one of sound and realistic advice (which after careful consideration have elected to follow) rather than instruction. The letter is private, and as such it would not be appropriate for me to share it with an audience for whom it was never intended. If you want to get the writing department's stand on this, I recommend writing to them and ask them what their views are. - CobaltBlueTony 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said :

You say you contacted other JW Wikipedians about this communication from WT headquarters besides Summer Song. How many JW editors did you contact about this? How many have stopped editing here? Why did you feel the need to encourage other JW editors not to edit JW articles?

When Jesus was haled before the Romans, he kept silent. Why? It's not that he didn't know the answer; it's that the truth was already before them and they chose not to accept it, no matter how well-meaning they might have appeared. Certainly he could have talked his way out of his execution. He could have used supernatural means, or he could have masterfully argued his case. It was not simply a matter of prophecy. Individuals had the knowledge and freedom of choice to participate in his execution, or refuse. Many Jews did not condone the actions of their leaders.

Jehovah's Witnesses have done much to make sure people know who they are and what they believe. They offer themslves actively to people who honestly wish to know more. Opposers and naysayers are everywhere, and it is not a useful exercise to try to answer every challenge; at people's doors, if they want to debate us, we almost always walk away. Wikipedia will always be a forum for constant challenge wherein "newcomers" can repeatedly edit incorrectly or inaccurately the same misinformation into the articles, requiring someone or a number of people to be everpresent to re-argue reality again and again. This is not a valuable use of my time. The accurate information was added; opposers wish to nitpick and draw out this procedure far beyond its useful study, and Wikipedia is perfect for them to do so. If you're looking for accurate information about what we believe, just ask us. - CobaltBlueTony 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the reality of a situation dictates a course of action that strays, even widely, from the direction for which we were hoping. I still have a lot of hope for Wikipedia and this process, but I do think that some subjects should only have qualified editors working on them, and that Wikipedia should organize a consortium of scholars who can oversee a relatively simple streamlined process to bring people in. I don't think that anonymity has any value to academic progress. - CobaltBlueTony 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually expect you to grasp what opposers are because you don't have personal experiences involving them. Our shared experiences and my own personal experiences, along with the Bible's description of those who oppose Jehovah, give us a much different picture than could be perceived from those on the outside.

Your wording, specifically "I am still dismayed at the advice ... that JW Wikipedians should not edit JW articles," and "hopefully, some JW editors will have the courage to continue", concerns me, because it suggests that you still see our "leadership" as more dictatorial and that we do not really follow in our minds and hearts the Scriptural reasonings offered by them at all. We have made the choice not to edit anymore because the logic and Scriptural reasoning makes sense to us. It is a matter of courage, not to keep rebuffing every single lie, but to respond to the right kinds of misinformation under the right circumstances. Taking only most appropriate action when necessary, and not 'striking our blows so as to be hitting the air,' takes courage, and strong faith in Jehovah. - CobaltBlueTony 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I wonder if it was a good idea to put that thing on the JW talk page. I would say that there are probably many JWs who would look at the page, without necessarily knowing about this latest instruction. Upon seeing it, they are likely to, as a result, shut out yet another source of information that would cause them to question their beliefs. BenC7 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Some said that "Jehovah's Witness literature" would be more grammatically correct. But if I am wrong, just revert it. I am not a native english speaker, U know. Summer Song 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment moved from user page

-- are you a Jehovah's Witness? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.109.235.241 (talk • contribs) 22:55, January 2, 2007

Contact me via "email this user" to discuss this if you'd like. Dtbrown 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel

I would request a language and grammar check on this section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Bethel Thanks. Summer Song 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

compromise

Dtbrown I appreciate you stand. I think it is ridiculous to imply that JW are not Christian. We can debate whether they are a sect,cult, denomination, but to debate whether they are Christian is hard for me to fathom. Again we can debate whether they are true Christians but that is where a true POV can come in. Besides the EB does call them a "Protestant denomination" [2] So I don't see why this page should compromise to one person's personal believe who probably is using a Sock Puppet.

Also thank you for changing my editions on blood to be more appropriate. Please keep the following in mind-Witness do not require meat to be kosher which requires more work. Jews take it to an extreme where as Witnesses believe in the principle of respect and that every tiny little drop doesn't have to be gone. Besides Fish has some blood in it and it is not bleed but eaten. See the Watchtower June 15, 2004 p.23 Par. 15

[3] [4]

[5] Johanneum 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid

DTbrown I am scratching my head. Some time ago I copied parts of the book and am looking at the copies. [6] Great Pyramid Passages Volume 2 is the same as what I have but I do not understand what is going on with the first volume. The Title page is the same including the edition, except for the Publisher being Marshall Brothers, LTD London 2 Crane Court, Fleet Street, E.C. 4 1923. I have what says, "Section I" Under which it has "THE MEASURMENTS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID" Then it starts out with, " Following the labours of Professor John Greaves in 1637, and Colonel Howard Vyse two hundred years later in 1837, the celebrated astronomer, Professer C. Piazzi Smyth,was the first to employ, in a ..... The paragraphs are also numbered strarting with 2 and so forth. #2 starts off by saying, " Later, in 1881, the eminent Egyptologist,Professor (now Sir) W. M. Flinders Petrie, also worked ......

The link above had "Chapters" in it. This has no "chapters" but Sections. Let me know if you figure this one out before I do. Dumbfounded Johanneum 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it. At [7] IT appears to me that they only have Volume 1 and not the other 2 volumes. Though they link the one as volume 2 I am pretty sure that it is actually Part 2 of Volume 1. Anotherwords they do not have Volume 2 or 3. See if you can find it elsewhere.Johanneum 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Catholics: "Churches" vs "Rites"

Hi. The discussion on proper name of the article Eastern Rite Catholic Churches is once again active. I and other editors have offered facts showing that Popes John Paul II and Benedict refer to them as churches, not rites, and that the Vatican institution charged with the matter also uses the term churches. I know that this has been a tedious issue, but we would appreciate having your renewed participation. Please see Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Thanks, Majoreditor 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. We finally got the article's name changed. Thanks for your help. Majoreditor 05:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I included the link to http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm because it goes right to the heart of the central difference between Jehovah Witnesses and all other Christian churches. It is certainly not inclusive of all JW beliefs, but a succinct article that is clear and well presented.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Response

Gaelic Knight is not a vandal but has a great interest in forwarding correct and accurate information for the benefit of all in an unbiased manner. To edit controversies and then be hailed as a vandel is silly to say the least due to the actual nature of controvercial articles which will most naturally be edited by opposing viewpoints. Gaelic Knight appologises though for edits and sees the futility of editing articles on Jehovah's Witnesses which are so blatently overseen and edited by those with hidden agendas against accurate dissemination of facts about Jehovah's Witnesses.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaelic_Knight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelic Knight (talk • contribs)

why do my edits keep getting deleted? and Jehovahs Witness are not Christians.Mstare88 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk

if there are any JW's out there please visit my talk page and discuss why you belive thses things. I am a Protestent and would enjoy discussing these things with you. i would like to know more about JW's and maybe we can find common ground on some things. as well a maybe point out were either one of us may be wrong. please reply.Mstare88 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

escatology

WHy do you feel explaining the exact reasons for the dates arrived at by classical scholars and JW's are POV? I was trying to show that JW's don't agree with the accepted chrononlgy and even gave the exact sources which you removed. George 13:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the facts Dave, however the Bible does not say "Jesus is God". It does however say the length of the exile was 70 years. In three books it says 70 years. Bringing up the fact that in order to make the two harmonize, beleif that the 70 years statements are symbolic is common. I believe it should be presented that way as this is the actual fact of the matter. Why do you not want Parker and Dubenstein mentioned? George 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comment on my talk page

Please see the Talk Page for Jehovah's Witnesses for a more in-depth explanation of why including a POV term and an unsourced assertion that many or some (weasel words) Vhristian groups find their teachings heretical. Such Criticism has a place in the article and it is not in the opening paragraph. If you wish to include such accusations, find the reliable source that states it and add the cite and the quote to the controversy section. I won't object. Just be specific and try to avoid stating facts not backed up by cites and try to avoid using indeterminate subjects in sentences such as "some" and 'many". Those are considedered weasel words and will usually get reverted quickly.LiPollis 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, I am guessing now that perhaps you are not familiar with wikipedia's standards for citing facts? it's pretty simple and I'll try and help you if you find a source but don't know how to list it properly in the article. The deal is this - encyclopedia's are collections of facts from first and secondary sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, published lectures, transcripts of radio shows or TV shows etc., etc. That makes Wikipedia and all encyclopdias tertiary sources. All facts asserted must be referenced. A writer may not simply say "Some writers say this" without providing a citation within the article that references the book, article, lecture, transcript, sacred publication etc, where you snagged that fact from. It is often the habit of some religious editors to slag all over religious groups they are in confluct with by adding uncited assertions of criticism or unsourced accusations of heresy. It gets pretty nasty at times and it's not behavior confined to the young and enthusiastic. I believe now that was not your intention. However, I bet you can now see how it may look that way, right?

If you want to include a quote from a reliable source (see WP:RS for a description of what a reliable source is), you need to first find the publication where the quote or assertion can be found and then include a link to it in wikimarkup within the text. I wish I could type out how to do the markup here but if I do, it will just show up as a footnote. Let me know when you find your links and I'll try and help you formulate some text and inline citations, how's that? Will that help out? Just leave me a note on my talk page with the sentence you are thinking of including and the link to the source and I'll see what we can work up.LiPollis 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. These sources are hardly reliable. Additionally, you should probably be discussing this on talk and come to a consensus first. Thanks! Gscshoyru 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Jehovah's Witnesses Page

I just wanted to ask about your edits to the Jehovah's Witnesses page. Why would you remove Apocalypse Delayed by M.J. Penton which is the only work on the history of JWs published by a University Press in print? The other item which I had restored (which had been on the page for nearly two years until it was removed last month with no edit summary) is an important work by a former member of the Witnesses' Governing Body.

I did post a query on talk on the propriety of inserting a theological interpretation of the Witnesses history into the main section of the article. Should an encyclopedia suggest that the Witnesses as a movement have been around since Biblical times? That is their theological view (and as such could fit into the Beliefs and Practices section), but there are no secular sources which identify the Jehovah's Witness movement before the days of Russell and Barbour in the 1870s.

I also do not understand the comparison to "jew watch" in your edit summary. These sites can not be compared to anti-semitic propaganda. Should not the article present all viewpoints, including critical ones, in the other sites section? Or, are only positive sites permitted?

The other links edit is not as important to me as the idea that Wikipedia should present the JW theological interpretation of their history as fact and the removal of standard sources on the JWs such as Apocaylpse Delayed and Crisis of Conscience. Dtbrown 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was overzealous a bit... I've had to deal with some serious POV vandalism on this page, and "adding back links" sorta alerted me that it might be the same thing again. It is, too, at least to some degree... no matter how you put it, sites such as this: [8] does not belong. These sites are certainly analogous to "jew watch" sites. Why? Because it's discussing the religion as an evil cult, and discusses how to convert them away from the evil teachings... etc. As already stated by others on your talk page, these are not reliable sources (WP:RI), and do not belong as a source on wikipedia. I'd really suggest you actually talk to people who understand this better than I before making changes, ok? Thanks. Gscshoyru 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll differ with you on the "other links" section, but I'll not make a point of it for now. If you check [9] and the logs for long before that, you'll see that Professor Penton's book Apocalypse Delayed and Crisis of Conscience were on the page then and for long before then. They were removed in the past couple of months with no edit summary or discussion on the Talk Page. If you check my user contributions you will see that I used to be heavily involved with editing the page until about May and I took a breather until recently. I see no reason why Penton and Franz' works should not be recognized for their importance to studies on the JWs. Can I restore those? Dtbrown 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what they are, but I hope they aren't anything like the websites. Also, page history has nothing to do with whether page information is good or not, and should have no bearing on any decisions of page content... but I digress. If it's a legit academic paper, be my guest. Gscshoyru 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have restored them. Dtbrown 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I would, however, mention this on the talk page and discuss this with those who know better than I, because I really am not sure if what you're doing is right or not. Ok? Gscshoyru 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yo

I'll post a quick how-to on the JW talk page sometime tonight. Duffer 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful and Descret Slave

I would like to hear if you have any opinions on the topic I started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Faithful_and_Discreet_Slave#The_role_of_the_class_as_a_whole Summer Song 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Millions now living will never die cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Millions now living will never die cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism

Hello, I hope this works, I thought it would be the quickest way to contact you. I am currently involved in a "discussion" on the talk page of Nontrinitarianism and would appreciate some support from people who believe in the article as I am encountering interferance from a (obvously biased) Trinitarian. If you have the time, and/or know anyone with input, please help. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWT sub-user page

Dtbrown: I have created a sub-user page to continue editing the article on the NWT while it is protected.

You may or may not know the current circumstance of dispute. If you are aware of this, it is understandable that you have not offered public comment, and I am neither asking that you do so nor that you continue refraining. But, if you want, any feedback on my page set up for continuing the work of improving this article would be appreciated. You understand Wikipedia policy, and have demonstrated a competent perspective on appropriate presentation and verification. Despite my intention of working to improve this article, we both know feedback you offer on this sub-user page could be construed one way or another regarding the current dispute. Hence, if you decline my invitation it is understandable. Regardless, whether you like it or hate it, perhaps something in my editing will offer ideas for later editing to improve the Wikipedia article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Can you HELP me? Please see this. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Sarim

Thank you for the throrough work being done at this article. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am blown away by the quality of your research and editorial skills. Unbelievable! Good job. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutheford's wife's house: [10]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could request a Good Article (GA) rating from the WikiProject Christianity/Assessment at: [11]. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here