User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2020

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

Curious why you undid edits on page for The Watchtower magazine

If you follow any sources cited in my edit, you will find that they link directly to publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses, on their own website.

Your claim that they are misleading seems incorrect, when they are taken directly from official sources, and I'd like to hear your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khouryabdel (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You edit was a tangent seeking to present a 'scandal' about donations in a manner that goes beyond the scope of the article, which is specifically the magazine in question. Additionally, your edit summary said you 'added links' when you really added an entire paragraph. The fact that you 'cited sources' does not automatically mean that anything you want to say is suitable in any article. The only part of your edit that was directly pertinent to the article was your first sentence, but it was redundant because it is already covered in the first two sentences of the Cost subsection. Further, none of the sources you cited support your claims about 'scrutiny', which is an unsourced opinion.

If you wish to discuss the matter further, do so at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please consider why we're here

Hi Jeff. Re. Siege of Jerusalem: if I find a valid point, or a useful bit of info, which isn't presented the right way, I fix it. If I remove it, I damage the user, and nothing else but the user matters here - everything else is just the way we chose to waste our time. Please, tell me you agree with that, at least the first part :) Cheers and stay well, Arminden (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Our primary aim here is to build an encyclopedia, not to safeguard the feelings of editors by retaining whatever they might happen to add. Removing content that does not improve the encyclopedia does not 'damage the user' in any tangible way. If you believe that any your edits that have been removed were actually improvements independent of how their removal makes you feel, please feel free to discuss at the relevant articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem

Your edit: [[1]] says the infobox doesn't say "third siege". No, it doesn't use those words, it just lists the sieges by their dates. This one is the third listed, hence it is the third siege. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realised the source of confusion after my initial comment. As explained in my second edit summary (note that this wasn't my second edit summary of all time), the usual context of the two sieges in question is the attacks by Nebuchadnezzar II. The article in question is the second of those sieges, and I updated the article to reduce confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Daniel didn't exist

I see this topic was broached back in 2016 but I'm assuming the person who argued for it did not refute the source. The sweeping statement of "consensus of modern scholarship is that Daniel did not exist" itself needs to be investigated. What were the sources of this statement? As is, it is just a radical claim by the author and why it is included on the page at all for Daniel makes me question the motives of the editor. Claiming that what people view as a historical figure didn't exist requires more than a single author who makes this claim as a "consensus." Until multiple sources can verify that Daniel didn't exist, there is no consensus proving that he didn't, therefore this statement shouldn't be included. Yes, I realize that the sources should be investigated by anyone reading Wiki but the idea of what is written on the main page is that it is thoroughly investigated as fact. There just simply isn't enough evidence based on the source to make this claim as a "consensus for modern scholarship." Therefore the statement "The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed" should be removed until proven further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytheRaven (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any broad scholarly agreement that Daniel was an actual historical figure, and the only people who seem to maintain that he was have a vested (religious) interest in maintaining that belief. All available evidence indicates that the book of Daniel is a work originating in the mid to late 2nd century BCE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses sources

Hi, I noticed that you keep reverting my edits on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Criticism of Protestantism regarding my addition of online JW books and publications from the Watchtower Online Library. I'm totally aware that sources are not for preaching (as you said), and in fact I'm NOT preaching JW beliefs, but nonetheless the problem with JW sources is that they have so many official statements of their belief system disseminated thorughout their entire literature that I honestly find difficult and somewhat unfair to provide only one reference to sustain the statements of their beliefs in the most comprehensive way.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not necessary for citations to be "the most comprehensive" (especially when the point in question is tangential to the main purpose of the article), and there is also no requirement for the number of citations to reflect the amount of material that a source has published on a particular subject. You can readily see in articles generally that statements are not typically supported by 3 or 4 citations (which should generally be done only if something is especially controversial), and there is no special 'JW exception' to the general presentation. The statements you have cited are not so complex as to require multiple citations. Your implication that the JW views such as commemorating Jesus' death or using the name Jehovah is so spread out in their literature as to require 4 separate citations is entirely unsupportable. If you are concerned that a particular belief may have changed, provide their most recent source on the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nelson Barbour page up for AfD

Hey. Thought if you hadn't seen this you may want to comment. Or not lol. Your choice, just bringing it to your attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nelson_H._Barbour Vyselink (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder here. The article is in my Watch List... but so are lots of other things so it got lost in the mix.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Alexander Thomson (writer)

Hi, I saw that you participated in a talk page discussion about deleting Alexander Thomson (writer) a while back. I've submitted it to AfD, in case you want to participate in the discussion. Alan Islas (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Imagefile:JWStats1931-2015.png

Hi. I made a svg-version of your image. File:JWStats by year.svg. Hope you like it. --Russellin teekannu (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)