text:
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 4

"Nontrinitarian" qualifier

 * NOTE: The thread of this topic was previously spread over 3 subheadings on this discussion page. All comments have been merged under this one subheading. NO COMMENTS WERE DELETED. --DannyMuse 05:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that it is unneccessary to put this description here wher it is dealt with later in the article. It seemed frivolous to have it in the introduction. We might as well describe JEhova's Witnesses as a nontrintarian, politically neutral, religiously isolated, morally strict, biblically adherant, evangelistic... you get my point? Anyway, if you want the Non T qualifier so much I'll leave it alone, can't say if anyone else will though. george m

 * Doesn't seem unnecessary to me, whoever you are. Wesley 03:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Usually the "disputed" note is put up when there is an actual dispute. Is it disputed that this group is not Trinitarian? What are your grounds for adding the "disputed" notice? Mkmcconn — 06:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put the disputed messasge in, it was the "administer". georgem BTW is that person an admin or just using a play on words?

I revert the lead sentence to include "Nontrinitarian", not because Jehovah's Witnesses describe themselves this way, but because this important qualifier renders neutral the claim that they are Christian. Mkmcconn — 22:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-- It is not necessary. The 3nd paragraph already notes they are not trinitarian.

 * And the first paragraph says that they are Christian with a difference - so I'll remove it from the third paragraph. This qualifier explains why it is controversial to call them "Christian" at all. To those who care about such things, it is the most important thing about them, and explains a great deal. To those who care nothing about such things, it barely registers as being "helpful" (as Gary D puts it). To those for whom it is a problem to call them "Christian", it is not a problem to call them them "nontrinitarian Christian". Mkmcconn — 21:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't yet know whether I care about it or not. Somebody explain to me (and the rest of WP's readers) its significance. Why is it controversial to call JWs "Christian" at all? How does the "nontrinitarian" qualifier alleviate that? Help! Hoo! Whoa! I'm sinking in a pool of insider code and shared but unspoken premises! Throw the poor reader an exegesical life preserver! Glurb...Glug...Blub... --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. They are saying that the salvation that they are looking for is not the one other people who call themselves Christians are looking for. From there, they may differ in a thousand other ways, but what really matters to those "other Christians" is that their difference begins with a denial of the Trinity. Their idea of unity with God is affected, thereby; and consequently they think differently about Christians' union with one another despite other differences; and so on, and on. I can see your problem, but I don't see clearly how to economically help. 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You will see the same discussion going on between Mormons and trinitarian Christians (but the Mormons are much more conversational, by far). 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support going forward on the basis of using of "nontrinitarian Christian" as the lead line. As I long ago promised someone around here I would, I have recently been building up entries on trinitarianism and nontrinitarianism as competing doctrines and groups. In both those articles it is explained that many trinitarians consider nontrinitarians as non-Christian, so that position is established and explained in WP as an umbrella concept, and the trinitarian folks can be happy about their view being represented. It therefore seems to me that we don't have to duplicate the full trinitarian/nontrinitarian dispute in every article on a nontrinitarian denomination. On the other hand, the nontrinitarian folks should also be happy, as the article group on their doctrine has grown and is growing into a respectable WP article grouping on sincere and respectable people. --Gary D 19:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * In principle, that sounds like a reasonable approach, and I look forward to seeing the results. I agree with George and Rantaro that it would be important to distinguish between different kinds of nontrinitarianism, rather than paint them all with the same brush. Wesley 16:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right. One question. Is it important to the POV you best understand, Wesley, that these "types of non-trinitarianism" be prominently explained, or may they simply fall within the doctrinal sections? For example, where the JW's believe Jesus Christ is not God, would we need to say something like "...are a non-trinitarian (they do not believe, for example, that Jesus Christ is God) Christian group." And where Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one essence, would we say something like "...are a non-trinitarian (they do not believe, for example, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one essence) branch of Christianity." Or do the doctrinal explanations further down do enough to highlight the non-trinitarianism? I am sensitive to your point of view that it is important to avoid downplaying the degree of difference. You know, for example, that Latter-day Saints explicitly reject the notion of trinitarianism, the traditional creeds, the historical debates and decisions in their whole under their umbrella Great Apostasy. Are we doing enough to make this clear? Tom - Talk 17:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Including a brief recap list catalog of these movements and differences in the nontrinitarianism article would be great. --Gary D 19:29, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Tom, I think adding those parenthetical explanations would add more awkwardness to the opening than it's worth. Linking to the nontrinitarian article and maybe putting the type of nontrinitarianism there for each group (as Gary suggests) should be enough. Wesley 16:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Tom - Talk 18:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will say that if the "nontrinitarian" qualifier keeps getting removed from the intro without any explanation on this page, I'm tempted to either start looking for another much stronger qualifier or take out "Christian" altogether. If this turns into an edit war with no meaningful attempt at compromise, I might have to look more seriously at the various ways to resolve it. DannyMuse, I would discuss this with you on your own Talk page if you had an actual user page. Wesley 16:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I sympathize. Continual reverting is a drag. We need a little help here from the JW editors. We non-JW editors cannot come up on our own with an intro that is both unbiased and suitable to the casual JW visitor. Come on, guys. Show us a little esprit de corps and help us do this in a way that will be a little more entropy-proof. Tom - Talk 18:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's my proposal:
 * One of the JW editors please put a list together of all known active JW editors and get as many of them as possible to add this page to their watchlist (that is probably already done)
 * All of the JW editors please take seriously the need to explain succinctly (one word if possible ???) that JW is non-traditional Catholic/Protestant Christianity.
 * All of the JW editors assist us in the next few months to develop a truly unbiased description that will sit well with casual JW passers-by so we don't have to continually revert and thus disrespect both our own time and the time of the passers-by.
 * And I will participate for as long as it takes. Otherwise I don't see any way to conserve all our time other than to protect a version that the few of us here have agreed on. Tom - Talk 18:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with both Tom and Wesley's comments. I've been thinking about some points to consider that may help resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. I don't have the time to write now, but will in detail later. I didn't want the active editors to think I'm ignoring you or the issue! BTW, anyone is free to write directly to me at my user Talk page. --DannyMuse Talk 20:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove "Disputed"
Who objects to the removal of the "disputed" notice? Please speak up. Mkmcconn — 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Let us turn passion into explication
I have been watching the slow motion revert war regarding "nontrinitarian" for some time now, and I finally decided to click the links to see what all the doctrinal fuss is about. To my surprise, both trinitarian and nontrinitarian are unhelpful stubs, so I still don't know what all the doctrinal fuss is about. However, there are apparently several Wikipedians to whom this distinction is passionately important, so may I suggest we convert this passionate energy into explanatory power by having some of your folks tie into one or both of these linked articles, if not into the body of text in this article, to explain what these concepts mean in context of Jehovah's Witnesses and why the distinction is so important. A revert war over a cryptic stub seems a waste (sort of "Bele and Lokai" for you Star Trek types). --Gary D 20:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The fuss isn't over the stubs, of course. "Nontrinitarian" is not cryptic to anyone who cares about the distinction. Isn't the sum of what you say here, that you do not care? Mkmcconn — 21:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm saying I do not understand, given the body of text I currently have before me. I might very well care about the distinction. You, for example, are telling me it's very, very important. If it's important, I do care, and I want to know all about it! I am gleaning that anyone who doesn't believe in trinitarianism probably can't be a Christian. That certainly sounds important! So--why? What's it all about? I take it this has to do with God as one versus God as three, but how does that tie in with JWs and how does it all manifest? Examples and diagrams welcome! "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" worked well for Laura Petrie during marital arguments on the old Dick Van Dyke Show, but it's not a very good theme for an encyclopedia. Tell us! --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since most of the first four centuries of the Christian Church deal with this, it's a bit of a challenge to boil it down, don't you think? Read the Trinity article. It has some rudimentary explanation of why trinitarian Christians think that this is important. Mkmcconn — 22:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the responses, especially your explanatory paragraph in the section above this one. Keep your eye on trinitarian and nontrinitarian, and maybe I can do something in those articles armed with your paragraph that might answer a reader with my questions. --Gary D 19:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. I look forward to what you might offer. Mkmcconn — 20:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---"When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ." So 'nontrnitarian" should be put up? This is not a neutral position. The trinity issue should be addressed but not on the first paragraph. Not like that.

 * Neutral in what sense? It is descriptive. It is true. It is a non-controversial fact. It explains plainly in what sense they are Christian. And since they want to make it clear that they are not Christians like those they seek to convert to their religion, it is very confusing to me why it is impossible to plainly state the truth on this page! Neutral? It's not for the sake of neutrality or factuality, that you revert this repeatedly; it's in order to let stand unqualified the claim that JWs are Christians, even though you know that they mean by this something completely different than that word ordinarily means. Mkmcconn — 03:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what? Just because you believe they are not Christians you are going to add "untrinitarian"? Who would take Wikipedia serious as an encyclopedia having somebody who adds to an article his or her thoughts?

 * My motivations are not really relevant, here; although I can understand why you read my actions through the motives that I reveal. More exactly, I put "nontrinitarian" there because it explains the sense in which they are called Christians - like calling another group, "fundamentalist Christian", "Protestant Christian", or "New Age Christian". These are intended to be neutral, factual and descriptive - although any one of these groups may prefer to call themselves merely, "Christian". It is not my opinion that JWs are nontrinitarian. It is a meaningful, informative fact.

 * Anyway, your comment is obsolete and irrelevant. It does not interact with the edits that I actually made. Mkmcconn — 00:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality & libel Disputes
There has been a lot of talk about the introduction. Now I ask: Isn't it good just saying: "Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarion christian religious group." This is neutral and clean, I think.

Mr. Olsen

 * That they are Christian is one POV, that they are not is another; both are widely held as far as I can tell. The previous version was an attempt to include or accomodate both points of view:  Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a religious group that describes itself as Christian, and based on the teachings of the Bible. Thanks for signing your post btw. Wesley 16:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I always thought that being christian was just that you held the belief in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, and believe that through him there was the future hope, I never before realised that many people think that you need to believe in Christ's divinity in order to be christian. Very interesting, learn something new every day. -- elykyllek 18:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The current intro contains redundant statements:

"Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian religious group. They consider themselves Christians, but many Christians regard them as a non-Christian religious group because they deny that Jesus was an incarnation of God."

Problems I have with this also include the use of the word "deny". This carries a negative and accusatory tone. EX: "Do you deny the evidence mr X?" The statment also implies that Jesus is God, because JW's DENY it. We are not writing a text book for an "orthodox" theology school, are we?

There has been so much argument over this, I propose we eliminate this controversial intro and go with the second pargraph as the beginning of the article with the heading Jehovah's Witnesses at the top.george m

 * I think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christianity group. They encourage faith in Jesus Christ in The Watchtower, their organ. Also many search engines define them as Christianity group. So, it's a libel to JW that JW is not Christianity group. Rantaro 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Rantaro, I am a Jehovah's Witness, so you can see that accuseing me of libelous activity is quite ridiculous. I agree that it is a lie to say JW's are not Christian. The reason I edited that part out was to avoid a conflict with people who would remove it and place something negative instead. If you go through the page histories you will understand what I am saying regardless of whether you agree with my opinion or not. Please try to control your temper. george m

--

I can't see why the introduction should be such a big problem. I must say I am tired by doing things with the intro. I think it should be written something like this:

''Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian christian religious group. Being such, it is often considered as breaking with the mainstream. The modern denomination traces back to some Bible study groups founded by Charles Taze Russell.''

Mr. Olsen, Norway

 * I think so, too. In fact, many search engines includes Yahoo! and Google ,AltaVista regard them as Christianity group,and many dictionaries in Japan also do so. Undoubtedly, Wikipedia need to write on neutral point, but it also need to write factually. It is obviously based on Catholic & Protestant church doctorines that deny christianity of Jehovah's Witnesses and it's POV. Rantaro 11:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, we should write factually. Throughout most of history, being "Christian" has included holding a belief that Jesus is God (and more than that of course). It appears to be misleading and disingenuous to ignore what most of the rest of Christendom, at present and throughout history, regards as a huge difference. At the very least, they should be called a nontrinitarian Christian group, or else a religious group that calls itself Christian, or some variation of one of those. Wesley 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again I would pay attention to the introduction. Why shouldn't the following statement be included: "Russell founded some Bible study groups, which multiplied...." The text without this information seems really confucing. Mr. Olsen

 * I just amended the second sentence to be closer to what you suggest. It may not make sense any more to keep the "During Russell's lifetime" in the new context. Go ahead and edit boldly if you see a way to make this better. Wesley 16:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is a Christian ?

 * 1) The word Christ means savior
 * 2) Christians accept that there is a Savior
 * 3) Jesus has been identified as the Christ
 * 4) Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes onto the Father except by means of me"
 * 5) The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
 * 6) Jesus says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

If your faith honestly comports to this and does not add in things which contradict it, then "Christian" is a fair word.

However, the issue of being "Born Again" is entirely another thing. Each person must make their own personal apprehension of faith. Those that make one in Jesus's name and by His blood are born again.

Therefore, persons attending or particpating in a Christian religion/denomination who have not made a personal apprehension of faith, are not Born Again Christians

Hopefully this clears things up.

05:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I think your theory is partly different from Bible teachings. The word "Christ" (Heb.Messiah) means "anointed one", not savior. (See Christ) This proves that there is one who anointed Jesus Christ. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a savior. But they think He is and was not Almighty God.
 * Almighty God is only Jehovah God, and Jesus is His Christ (anointed one).
 * Second, Jehovah's Witnesses think John 1:1 in most translations is wrong. They translated it:" In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT) because the former God and the latter god are different in original Greek words. Rantaro 08:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * These two comments nicely highlight how Jehovah's Witnesses both translate and interpret the first chapter of John differently than pretty much the rest of Christendom, past and present. Notable exceptions of course include Arianism, which also believed that Jesus was a highly exalted being, but still a creature created by God. This fundamental difference concerning the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ is why when Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves "Christian," what they mean is not what is usually meant by the term. BTW your description above raises an honest question for me: do JW's worship Jesus? If so, do they consider themselves polytheists, since they Jesus as a separate god from Jehovah? Wesley 16:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * JW's are not unique in their Bible's rendering of the verse J1:1. Most of the founding fathers of the USA rejected the trinity as an errant doctrine. There have been other groups throughout the history of Christianity, not much discussed, who held these beleifs as well. NO, Jw's do not consider themselves polytheists in the sense that they recognize only one Creator, the same being the only God deserving of worship. This logically is Jehovah of the Hebrew bible. We do not worship Jesus. The Bible says that there are "many gods", therefore believing that many spiritual creatures exist does not make one a polytheist in the abovementioned sense. If JW's are to be considered polytheists, then by the same coin so are all those who claim to be Christians, as they believe in angels and demons. george m

 * To say definitely, Jehovah's Witnesses DON'T worship Jesus Christ, but only Jesus' Father Jehovah God (Matt.22:37)through Jesus Christ(John 14:6). They think that Jesus Christ is Jehovah's Son (Matt.16:16) and their mediator. This view is based on Jesus teaching(Matt. 4:10; 23:9; 24:36; John 4:24; 14:28) and His Apostles view (Acts 4:30; 1 Cor.11:3) They receive Bible teaching instead of Christianity theology that based on Greek philosophy(Col.2:8), because they think that Jesus Christ is their only teacher(Matt.23:8) and He taught that Christians should keep away from their traditions not based on Bible.(Matt.15:3-9)Rantaro 01:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It does appear that JW's are not polytheists. I would say that they do differ from "mainstream" historic Christianity by not worshipping Jesus, even though Jesus' own disciples did so without being rebuked (Matthew 14:33, 15:25). Jesus told his disciples that whoever saw Him, saw the Father (John 14:7-11), since He is the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). All things were created through Jesus (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3), so therefore Jesus Himself cannot have been created, and must Himself be God. In Matthew 15:3-9, Jesus says nothing about traditions "not based on the Bible", but rather forbids doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the commandments of God.
 * No doubt we could argue and prooftext back and forth all day without either of us convincing the other. That's not what wikipedia is for. I asked my question above to learn more precisely how JW's differ from other Christians for the purpose of keeping the article accurate and improving it, not to start an argument. I do think this difference (worshipping Christ or not) is a key distinctive that deserves some mention in the article. Wesley 16:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I know you said you didn't want to go back and forth trying to convince one another but I just couldn't help myself :)
 * First (Matthew 14:33,15:25) in both cases someone was doing Obeisance to Jesus, this is not a form of worship, rather is a show of respect and sometimes submission.
 * (John 14:7-11) Speaks of Jesus being like God in appearance, and verse 6 says that anyone getting to the Father has to go through Jesus, JW's believe this as well.
 * (Colossians 1:15) Funny you mention this scripture, if you notice in the latter part it describes Jesus as the firstborn of every creature, ie the first creation, then all things were created through him.
 * (John 14:28) explicitly states I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.  It seems to me that if Jesus was God, then there couldn't be someone greater than him. -- elykyllek 18:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Judging from the above exchange, there may be a compelling reason to have a Jehovah's Witnesses and Greater Christianity article to explain all this. Tom - Talk 19:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matt.28:9-20
Regarding Matthew, if you make that distinction, you should have no problems venerating the cross, icons, the saints, etc. The distinction you make between "worship" and "obeisance" is essentially the same distinction Orthodox and Catholics make between "worship" and "veneration" (which often includes obeisances". As for what these passages mean, we can either turn to the Greek, or look at how they have been read and understood by the Church through the centuries. Matthew 28:9-20 gives two more examples of Jesus' followers worshipping him after his resurrection, along with the command baptize his followers "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not in the name of the Father only, much less in the name of "Jehovah." Wesley \

 * A "name" can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, "in the name of the law," or "in the name of common sense," we have no reference to a person as such. By "name" in these expressions we mean 'what the law stands for or its authority' and 'what common sense represents or calls for.' The Greek term for "name" (onoma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that "receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward," more modern translations say, "receives a prophet because he is a prophet" and "receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man," or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority."
 * Hense, Jehovah's Witnesses think that baptism "in the name of the Father" means to recognize our heavenly Father (Jehovah)'s office and authority, and that the baptism "in the name of the Son" means to recognize Jesus' office and authority as God's only-begotten Son. (1 John 4:9), and that the baptism " in the name of the holy spirit" means to recognize that the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force, used in various ways in harmony with his purpose. (Genesis 1:2; 2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Peter 1:21) Rantaro 04:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If you were to apply your interpretation of "in the name of..." consistently, you would certainly say that "in the name of the Father" means to recognize the Father's office and authority, "in the name of the Son" means to recognize the Son's office and authority, and "to recognize the Holy Spirit" means to recognize the Holy Spirit's office and authority. You become internally inconsistent with regard to the Holy Spirit. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * To recognize the holy spirit's office and authority doesn't mean to think that holy spirit is God. It's the same that to recognize the Son's office and authority doesn't mean to think the Son is God. This scripture means that the holy spirit helps those who qualify baptism to understand "the deep things of God", to carry on the Kingdom-preaching work, and to display the spirit's fruitage of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control." - 1 Corinthians 2:10; Galatians 5:22, 23; Joel 2:28, 29. Rantaro 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ditto what I said above. There is enough meat here to (once it is distilled) make a separate article that can be referenced in this article. Tom - Talk 19:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh 14:7-11
John 14:7-11, we're clearly interpreting differently. If you mean that Jesus is like God "in appearance", do you believe that God the Father has a physical body and a physical appearance, as do the Mormons?? Wesley \

 * Jehovah's Witnesses think God the Father (Jehovah) is a spirit person like his son Jesus Christ. God is invisible to human eyes (Ex 33:20; Joh 1:18; 1Ti 1:17), and he is alive and exercises unsurpassed force throughout the universe. (2Co 3:3; Isa 40:25-31) Christ Jesus states: "God is a Spirit [Greek, Pneuma]." The apostle writes: "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17, 18; NWT) The temple built on Christ as foundation cornerstone is "a place for God to inhabit by spirit."-Eph 2:22.

 * If God the Father is invisible and has no body, then what sort of appearance does He have? If he has no appearance, then how can Jesus be like God in appearance? As an aside, I very much doubt that John and Paul use the word "Jehovah" in the passages you cited last. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The disciples 'seeing' the Father in Jesus can be understood in the light of other Scriptural examples. Jacob, for instance, said to Esau: "I have seen your face as though seeing God's face in that you received me with pleasure." He said this because Esau's reaction had been in harmony with Jacob's prayer to God. (Ge 33:9-11; 32:9-12) After God's interrogation of Job out of a windstorm had clarified that man's understanding, Job said: "In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you." (Job 38:1; 42:5; see also Jg 13:21, 22.) The 'eyes of his heart' had been enlightened. (Compare Eph 1:18.) That Jesus' statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus' death, wrote: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."-Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.

 * God's firstborn Son, who later became the man Jesus, is in his Father's image. (2Co 4:4) Inasmuch as that Son was obviously the one to whom God spoke in saying, "Let us make man in our image," this likeness of the Son to his Father, the Creator, existed from when the Son was created. (Ge 1:26; Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15, 16) When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father's qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that "he that has seen me has seen the Father also." (Joh 14:9; 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 38, 42) Rantaro 12:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The Bible repeatedly refer to Jesus Christ as the one "sent" from God as his chief representative. (See, for example, John 3:17, 28, 34; 5:23, 24, 30, 37.) Interestingly, the Bible often describes persons who represent others as if they were the ones represented. Consider two examples:

 * (1) Matthew's Gospel relates that, after delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus entered into Capernaum, where "a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him" to heal his slave. (Matt. 8:5-13) Yet from the parallel account at Luke 7:1-10 we learn that the centurion "sent to [Jesus] elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave."

 * (2) In the Gospel of Mark we read that "James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him," asking: "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." (Mark 10:35-37) However, Matthew relates that this request to Jesus actually was made by "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," as their representative.-Matt. 20:20, 21.

 * Of course, no one would conclude from these Bible accounts that those Jewish elders were coequal with the centurion, or the mother of James and John coequal with her sons. Similarly, no one should conclude that Jesus is coequal with God simply because things stated about Jehovah God in certain parts of the Bible are applied to Jesus Christ in others. The real reason for this is that Jesus represents God. Further instances of representatives being spoken of as the ones they represent are found at Matthew 10:40; 18:5; Luke 9:48; John 4:1, 2.

 * Jehovah's Witnesses think that is why the Son of God said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father", and more is involved in that expression than mere representation. The request, "Lord, show us the Father," suggests that Philip wanted Jesus to provide for his disciples a visible manifestation of God, such as was granted in visions to Moses, Elijah and Isaiah in ancient times. (Ex. 24:10; 1 Ki. 19:9-13; Isa. 6:1-5) However, in such visions God's servants saw, not God himself, but symbolic representations of him. (Ex. 33:17-22; John 1:18) Jesus' reply indicated that Philip already had something better than visions of that type. Since Jesus perfectly reflected the personality of his Father, whom only the Son fully 'knew', seeing Jesus Christ was like seeing God himself. - Matt. 11:27.

 * The miracles of the Son of God, for example, manifested the love and tender concern for human welfare that is characteristic of Jehovah God. It is no wonder that, after Jesus resurrected the dead son of a widow from the Galilean city of Nain, observers exclaimed: "God has visited his people!"-Luke 7:11-16.

 * Further opportunities for people to 'see the Father' (that is, to perceive his personality, will and purpose) were afforded by what Jesus said, both as to content and manner of utterance. Persons who listened to Jesus learned that God judges people according to their heart condition, rather than by external circumstances, such as wealth, education, ceremonial cleanness or national origin. (Matt. 5:8; 8:11, 12; 23:25-28; John 8:33-44) How different from the viewpoint fostered by the Jewish religious leaders!-Note John 7:48, 49.

 * The way Jesus spoke, too, made his hearers realize that they were hearing a message from God, "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." (Matt. 7:29) Rather than speaking indirectly, in the name of other human teachers (as was customary among the scribes), Jesus often spoke in the first person, with the phrases: "I tell you," "Truly, I say to you," and "Truly, truly, I say to you." (Note Matthew 5:20, 22; 6:2, 5, 16; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25.) On occasion Jesus even declared the sins of certain persons forgiven, which led some to accuse him of blasphemously usurping a sole prerogative of God.--Mark 2:1-7; Luke 5:17-21; 7:47-49.

 * But Jesus never usurped the position of God. He readily admitted that the authority with which he spoke and acted did not originate with him. It was a delegated authority, for "the Father had given all things into his hands." (John 13:3; compare Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35; 17:2.) Hence, Jesus declared: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise." -- John 5:19; compare John 5:30; 8:28, 42.

 * Since everything that Jesus did was in full harmony with the will of God, persons who observed Jesus were in a sense observing God in action. In his notes on John 14:9, Bible commentator Albert Barnes expresses it nicely: "Hath seen the Father. This cannot refer to the essence or substance of God, for he is invisible, and in that respect no man has seen God at any time. All that is meant when it is said that God is seen, is, that some manifestation of Him has been made; or some such exhibition as that we may learn his character, his will, and his plans ... The knowledge of the Son was itself, of course, the knowledge of the Father. There was such an intimate union in their nature and design, that he who understood the one did also the other." -- Compare John 10:30. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Col. 1:15
Colossians passage, the NKJV renders it "firstborn over all creation" rather than "firstborn of every creature". He is a begotten Son, but eternally begotten, begotten from eternity outside of Time, before Time began. This better fits with both the rest of Colossians 1 and John 1:3.

 * In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is 'panta', an inflected form of 'pas'. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all...other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to 'panta' at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created...All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh. 14:28
John 14:28, Here Jesus is comforting his disciples. At this point their faith in the Father was greater than their faith in Jesus, and so Jesus reminds them that He is going to the Father to put their minds at ease. See John Chrysostom's homily at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-79.htm#TopOfPage. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.) states: "We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For 'the Father,' says He, 'is greater than I.' The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge." - Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8. Rantaro 05:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * In that book, Saint Irenaeus is emphasizing that some things remain unknown to us. Yet Irenaeus clearly believes that Jesus is God, and speaks of him at greater length in the same Against Heresies, Book III Chapter XVI., entitled "Proofs from the Apostolic Writings, that Jesus Christ Was One and the Same, the Only Begotten Son of God, Perfect God and Perfect Man." Verse four reads, 4. But Simeon also — he who had received an intimation from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, until first he had beheld Christ Jesus-taking Him, the first-begotten of the Virgin, into his hands, blessed God, and said, "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: because mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel; " confessing thus, that the infant whom he was holding in his hands, Jesus, born of Mary, was Christ Himself, the Son of God, the light of all, the glory of Israel itself, and the peace and refreshing of those who had fallen asleep. Wesley \

 * Chapter 19 of the same book is entitled, "Chapter XIX.-Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin." Verse two says, For I have shown from the Scriptures,365 that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin,366 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering;367 that He sat upon the foal of an ass;368 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;369 that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God,370 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;371 -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. Wesley \

 * Elsewhere, in chapters 2-4 of book III, Irenaeus also condemns as heretics any who cannot trace their teachings back to the apostles. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept Irenaeus' theology, but interpret John 14:28 literally just as Irenaeus's words that I quated above. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the most important topic is whether Jehovah's Witnesses accept that Jesus is Christ or don't. JW do so, then we can say that they are Christians. It's another story whether Jesus is God or not, isn't it? I know it is important for trinitarians, but I think it is not for NPOV documents like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that describe the fact, not describe trinitarians' views for JW. If it is based on trinitarians' views that JW are not Christians, I should say this article is POV. Rantaro 06:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Worshipping Jesus as God fundamental?
I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ? I know they believe in him as a great prophet, so it wouldn't surprise me if they believe Jesus was also the Christ, anointed by God. If so, then it clearly is not a valid test for determining Christianity. Honestly, worshipping Jesus as God is pretty fundamental. This is based on the dominant, historical understanding of Christianity down through the centuries, which ought to carry some objective weight even in an encyclopedia.

 * "I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ?"

-- No. They beleive he was no more than a prophet like Moses. george m
 * For some definition of "no more than a prophet", :-P. Prophets apparently command some amount of respect in Islam. Kim Bruning 17:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Worshipping Jesus as God is only fundamental for trinitarians. It isn't related to Christianity definition. Jesus didn't command to worship him. He ordered only to worship his Father, not him.(Matt.4:10) Obviously, he quoted from Deutronomy 5:9; 6:13; 10:20 in Matt.4:10. Deuteronomy's God is Jehovah, not Jesus. He repeated it in Matt.22:37, quoted from Deutronomy 6:5; 10:12. If Jesus was Almighty God or God the Father, he didn't need to pray alone (Matt. 14:23), to be strengthened by his angel (Luke 22:43), and to be resurrected by the other (Matt.28:7). And If so, I can't understand why the Son Jesus didn't know the great tribution's day and time (Matt.24:36), and why his Apostles called him as God's holy servant (Acts 4:30). Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it NPOV that JWs are Christians?
The article should not just be the trinitarians' view about JW's, but neither should it just be the JW's views about the JW's, which is what the article is mostly now. (See comments elsewhere on this page, near the top.) Where there are contrasting or opposing views on the same subject, both views need to be given with proper attribution. This is the classic wikipedia methodology for achieving NPOV. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that since we are involved in something NOT produced exclusively by JW's that all OPINIONS should be considered for input. I would point out however that only the most reliable and authoritative sources of information be used. The ONLY website listed under the library channel's directory for JW's is [www.watchtower.org their official website]. Theology changes constantly, and to dismiss JW's as unchristian because current "christian" theology schools say we are a cult is bad. Do you think Tom Jefferson or John Hancock were not Christians? Try telling your fellow churchgoers you do! To be honest most who teach or are taught in theology schools do not believe the Bible is reliable, therefore basing their arguments for the doctrines they teach on the Bible seems quite strange.

 * It is not only JW's view but Internet Serch Engines view (Yahoo! and Lycos) that JW is a Christianity group. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * No, Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were deists; Thomas Jefferson in particular is well known for literally using a scissors to cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like. I think most of my fellow churchgoers would agree. Our doctrines are based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church in an unbroken, public line of apostolic succession. I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Rome. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not familiar with that information about Jefferson. JW's doctrines are based solely on the bible, none on tradition. Who are claiming to be Apostles today in the Eastern Orthodox Church? Have you inserted a "nontrinitarian" intro into the mormon article?

 * Regarding Jefferson, see Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson Bible articles. Of course JW's doctrines are based on tradition, including the belief that Jesus and God are two entirely separate beings. That tradition informs the way you interpret the Bible, just as the traditions of every other denomination inform the way they interpret the Bible, my own included. Your tradition probably also includes well accepted truth about how God revealed the true Gospel to humanity in these latter days through Charles Russell, more or less. Having a tradition per se is nothing to be ashamed of. You are welcome to read the intro to the Mormonism article and judge for yourself. The word "nontrinitarian" does not appear there, but neither does the intro call it "Christian". Most of the controversy about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity has been pulled out and moved to the Mormonism and Christianity page. I don't know if you would prefer to do something like that here? You might also wish to confer with some of the Mormons who have worked on the Mormonism and Christianity article. Wesley \

 * I think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where write the fact neutrally and without libel, not where controvert what is a Christian. I think you should controvert about JW in other sites. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

libel?? All I have said is that many people do not consider JW's Christians, while others do. It is a fact that this is controversial. I think you should also write the facts neutrally, and admit that the JW's Christianity is something about which a great many people disagree. Both POV's need to be represented. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have requested for mediation with you. But mediation committe are negative about this matter, and I plan to request for page protection Rantaro 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church's apostolic succession, this is preserved by all of her bishops, particularly her patriarchs and metropolitans (subset of bishops). For instance, see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. By apostolic succession is meant both that the list of their teachers is ultimately traced back to Jesus Christ, and that they continue to teach the same things that Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. They may elaborate on those teachings, or explain them more fully, but should not and dare not contradict them. Individual bishops or priests may err and indeed have erred, but these errors have ultimately been refuted and defeated in every age, by the grace of God. Wesley 02:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Jehovah's Witnesses think that apostolic succession don't come from Jesus' Apostles or Bible, but from posterity apostate Christians.(2 Thessalonians 2:3) Many historians also think so.

I'm well aware of this. The subject is somewhat covered in the Great Apostasy article, but perhaps you could also improve that article. If it isn't already mentioned at apostolic succession, I would also invite you to note the controversy there. See? Balance is good. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Hindu may accepts Jesus as a authentic guru and believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but will not confine himself to Jesus and the Bible. I think that the following conditions suffice to be a Christian.
 * acceping Jesus as guru/prophet/messsiah and not accepting gurus from other traditions
 * believing that the Bible is divinely inspired and acceping holy books from other traditiions.

It will be clear that I consider Jehovah witnesses fully Christian. Andries 09:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is clear. I'm not quite clear why your conditions allow for accepting holy books from other traditions, but not gurus from other traditions. More importantly, I think these conditions are much broader than the general understanding of what Christianity is, especially when viewed historically over the past 2,000 years. It is this historical understanding of Christianity, and to some extent the general understanding in current usage, that seems more useful to me in the context of this wikipedia. What you think or what I think the conditions should be are not terribly significant guidelines. Wesley 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Children who died
No evidence that many children have died due to JW doctrine? How about the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine showing photos of 26 children, with the caption: "Youths Who Put God First."

Inside the magazine glorifies Witness children who died supporting WTS policy...that's not evidence enough?

 * This magazine insist that many children have died in the PAST (or Biblical age), not now. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

= Seeking a way forward = It appears that I have offended and upset a number of editors of this talk page and of the article in the last few weeks. This is at least partly because of the back and forth debate earlier on this page. For that part of the debate that was over the question of whether Jehovah's Witnesses are truly Christians, I apologize for my part in it. Wikipedia articles and discussion pages are not a proper forum to attempt to persuade people of such opinions, much less to settle such issues. Given my experience with wikipedia, I should have known better, did know better, and proceeded anyway. Please accept my humble apology, and forgive me, poor sinner that I am. Wesley \

I would ask that we agree to use this forum to discuss the improvement of the article, and the best way to apply Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to the subject matter. Hopefully we can arrive at some compromise that we can all at least live with, even if none of us is really happy with it in the end. Wesley 02:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You don't have to apologize to anyone, but I wish you consider minor religions just as major religions. I think nobody is angry with you. If we are Christians truely, I think we need to have Christian love (Matt.5:43-48; Jo.13:35). Of course, we also have to have wiki-love as Wikipedians. We can see you are an administrator, and we wish you deal with everything fairly. Thank you. -With Christian love and Wiki-love, Rantaro 06:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Believe me, I'm trying to be fair. For instance, at one time I hoped (as did at least one or two other editors) that "nontrinitarian" would be an acceptable compromise word, much more so than "non-Christian" for instance: since JW's don't claim to be trinitarian, I didn't expect it to be this objectionable. It's a word that will mean different things to different readers, and that leaves the interpretation up to the reader. What this article cannot be is nothing but the straight party line from the Watchtower Society. Official information should certainly be included and considered a strong source, but not the only one, any more than the Vatican should be the only acceptable source of information about Roman Catholicism. Wesley 17:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV demands that somewhere in the encyclopedia it be explained that according to one POV, JW are not a branch of Christianity. And also that said reference be pointed to as needed. NPOV demands that all significant POVs on a subject be explained, and that disputes be characterized. This subject cannot be resolved until the key parties read carefully and commit to follow the WP:NPOV article. I am not familiar with this corner of Wikipedia, but I would guess there may be a long, bumpy road ahead before this is resolved. Tom - Talk

I edited the article for language, clarity, and POV. Note that I left a few < ! - - Comments - - > in the source text that need to be addressed. But I don't see at this time why the NPOV disputation must remain. Can somebody explain why it should? Tom - Talk

 * I put the NPOV notice up after Rantaro formally requested mediation regarding this page, and suggested he was going to ask that it be protected. Those seemed like strong indicators that the page's neutrality was in dispute, so I was just trying to label the page according to what was going on here in discussion, and the sort of "slow motion edit war" over the opening that's been going on the last six months or longer. Given the slow motion edit war, I'd be inclined to leave the notice up until this is better resolved among all or at least most interested editors. Wesley 20:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Wesley. I was just wondering. I don't blame you. So I guess my question below stands for the JW editors. Tom - Talk 21:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having said and done all that, I ask the JW editors how they would characterize fairly the break between JW and nominal Christianity. Tom - Talk 17:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I can see you misunderstand me, I'll account to you.

At last, I'm Japanese, and I'm sorry for my poor English. Rantaro 02:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't want to request immediately for page protect.
 * 2) I requested for mediation because I see Wesley are an administrator. I also participate Japanese Wikipedia, there I can see some JW editors are banished from Japanese Wikipedia by Japanese administrators. I'm afraid that JW editors are also banished from English Wikipedia by administrator, because of edit war between JW editors and the other editors. Then I requested for mediation to be seen by third (neutral) party, before heavey edit wars occur.
 * 3) If you say that JW can't define as Christianity, or that is POV, all the Christian groups (including Catholics, Orthodox Church, Protestants, Latter-Day Saints) can't define as Christianity, or that is POV, because JW believe that trinity come from pegan, and that apostolic succession don't come from Apostles. (This mean JW think they are nominal Christians.) Do you understand this?

I appreciate highly your struggles given the fact you have to struggle not only with the issue, but with English. If we will all be patient, this will turn out to be a Great Thing. From what you describe, it sounds like there may be some nasty stuff going on at Japanese. Your experience here will help that. Jimbo Wales has personally set a great example and precedent, and we can feel very fortunate for the culture that has prevailed at Wikipedia in English. Every little struggle and interlingual experience like this that helps spread the positive aspects of en through Wikipediadom is a Great Thing. I can't imagine that Wesley would ever even feel free to ban you. Banning is a highly restricted action here, with careful procedures and safeguards. So feel free to speak your mind. Tom - Talk

Some direct questions we all should probably answer then. Tom - Talk
 * Do you prefer to remove the NPOV dispute right now, or leave it up? Tom - Talk
 * Remove. The article doesn't stand out as problematic. But leaving it up could serve as a prod if we decide to go on with the Great Wikipedia JW Discussion. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer to get other JW editors and focus on this article (and the whole JW area) right now, or shall we leave it alone?
 * Leave alone. Actually that's not true. I would rather see this happen, but I don't know that it can with just Tom, Wesley, and Rantaro. But if we can get some knowlegeable JW editors to help Rantaro with the adherent POV and maybe somebody else to help Wesley and me with the outsider critical POV, I am willing to go along with a struggle. I just don't have enough investment in the topic to do it alone, or probably with just us three. And I think it will be too frustrating for Rantaro unless he gets a native English fellow adherent invlolved. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And finally for Rantaro. Could you take 20 minutes to read the WP:NPOV article in English? Thanks. I appreciate all your efforts. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't mean that I remove or leave alone. But I mean, if you angry at my poor English, please forgive me. Then, I ask you two questions.

 * 1) Tom, why did you erase the phrase "for other religions"? Jehovah's Witnesses don't think they are controversy. They preach to teach Good News of Jesus Christ(Matt.28:19,20), not to controvert or argue. I think this statement is biased to other Christian groups views, isn't it?
 * I apologize if I did wrong. The wording was poor, but I understand your concern. You are saying that non-Christians generally call JWs Christians; it is only a lot of Christian groups that say otherwise. You might see how this is stated on Mormonism, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormonism and Christianity. I honestly don't recall, but I understand your point. Go ahead and try to fix it. Tom - Talk 07:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) You mean is NPOV only major opinions, does it ignore minority opinions? For instanse, it is major opinions that worshipping Jesus as God are Christianity. But this opinions ignore JW opinions. This definition make JW as non-Christian. But JW opinion make other Christian groups as nominal Christians. In this case, Wiki-en ignore JW opinion? This similar situation occured in Wiki-ja. Only major opinions were accepted in Wiki-ja, and JW opinion were ignored. All the JW opinions are erased by administrators in Wiki-ja. I think this is unfair. Rantaro 04:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, not at all. NPOV is to "represent all significant POVs fairly." That is a big different from all majority POVs. Does that help? Of course many minority opinions are significant. Yours is significant to you, isn't it? The only problem we sometimes run into is when there are so many opinions that it is hopeless to represent them all fairly. Then we have to start generalizing as in the Human article. See it isn't so bad as you may have feared. NPOV works in your favor here; we are just trying to help you figure out an appropriate way to resolve it. Tom - Talk 07:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Rantaro, let me begin by saying I have no intention of banning you, or of using my "admin powers" to advance my side of an argument. To be honest, I don't think I've ever actually exercised my admin. privileges, so if I've abused them it has only been through neglect. You're clearly not a wikipedia vandal, and I can't see any other reason you should be banned. Wesley \

 * The Trinity article does at least mention that some believe it has pagan origins. The apostolic succession article seems to lack much of a critique; it should probably at least link to the Great Apostasy article with a short mention of that area of dissent. Also for what it's worth, one of my earliest controversies was connected with the Christianity and anti-Semitism article, which I think might have been named Christian antisemitism or something at the time. I'm still not terribly happy with it, as it puts some people I revere as saints in a very bad light. But, aside from deleting quotes that were just wrong or couldn't be documented, and in some cases adding the Church's side of a particular incident, there's not really that much I can legitimately do about it. Such is life on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I managed to learn a bit while researching the claims made there.

 * SeeTrinity about trinity. Rantaro 05:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Back to this article, and defining this or that group as "Christian". Your point about no group qualifying for the moniker is well taken. Is it really that bothersome or unfair to describe the JW's as "nontrinitarian Christians"? Wesley 04:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that "nontrinitarian Christians" is unfair or POV. But, george_m think it is unfair. Maybe, he dislike that JW are equated with other nontrinitarian Christians groups like Arians. They think the holy spirit is person, but JW think it's not.Rantaro 06:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say if Wesley is willing to approve "Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian Christian group" you should count yourself lucky and go with it unless you want to change the word non-trinitarian. If I recall properly, we couldn't even agree on that about the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-trinitarian Christian church". So accept it cheerfully. Tom - Talk 07:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have very little time for this and so I sometimes get flippant with my work. Please accept my apologies for any insults or mistakes. Also I have little time for discussion. I do want to participate in regular work on articles related to JW's. I will try to be more clear and helpful. As to "nontrinitarian", I have no problem with it being there, I had originally removed it one time because I thought it was redundant. I now understand the reason why it was introduced and appreciate the logic. george m

About Mediation
Hi! I saw Rantaro's request for mediation, & thought I'd take a look to see if it can be of help. Although I feel I am impartial on this matter, I feel it is only fair to mention that I have an uncle in his 80's who has been a practicing JW for most of his life -- as are his children & grandchildren.

I did something of a quick read of this Talk page, & I'm not quite clear how mediation can help. Before mediation can get very far underway, let alone succeed, I feel that there are a couple of things that need to happen first:
 * 1.Rantaro has asked for "mediation" concerning this article, & mentions Wesley in particular. Wesley, are you willing to engage in mediation? If not, then frankly there's nothing that can be done.

 * 2.Rantaro, you speak about "libel" in reference to this article. I'm not quite clear what you mean by this word; accordig to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, to libel someone is to "defame or injure a person's reputation by a published writing." I have to say that anything so far written about Jehovah's Witnesses here is defamatory, although it's clear you are not happy about some of what has been written. Are you willing to explain the items that upset you here, & why?

 * Sorry, "libel" is incorrect for this situation, I think "slander" is correct English. Rantaro 05:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's the right word. Turning once again to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, I find it defines slander as defamation of someone or something "by oral expression"; libel is defamation "expressed by print, writing, pictures or signs".

 * Obviously you don't agree with what is being written about the JW. Perhaps the word you're searching for is "insulting"? If so, can you explain why you feel that it is? -- llywrch 23:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 3.Lastly, mediation can't succeed unless all parties involved are willing to find some kind of common ground. Even if you refuse my further efforts in this matter, no one on the Mediation Committee will be able to help with this unless everyone wants to find some kind of common ground. We have no powers to force anyone to do what she/he doesn't want to do -- although I'm willing to offer my honest opinions about any matter here. (I am always willing to expound on a topic to any audience. ;-)

Having written that, do I hear interest in mediation? -- llywrch 05:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think from reading earlier comments that R has dealt with difficulties in Japanese Wikip and is feeling tension that wouldn't normally be associated with English Wikip. I do not feel mediation is neccessary and have greatly appreciated the objectivity of the admin in this group since I began "playing" with wikipedia two years ago, and also now that I am actually trting to "work" here. george m

 * Llywrch, I think that Rantaro requested mediation because it was his experience in the Japanese Wikipedia that JW's were banned by administrators who disagreed with them, and he saw that I was an administrator who was disagreeing with him. As I have no intention of banning anyone, I don't see any need for a formal mediation process at this time. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if other reasons are put forward though. Wesley 16:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Since you declined mediation, Wesley, & I noticed BCorr (another mediator) has discussed this option elsewhere, I'll mark this issue closed on the Requests for mediation page. -- llywrch 18:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 4


text:
User talk:Mistersooreams

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

Other Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || What Wikipedia is not

Maintenance: Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload, otherwise we won't be able to use those images in many versions of WP.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~ . This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   15:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could use more cross-pollination with E2 around here.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Mistersooreams


text:
Aidan Quinn

Aidan Quinn (born March 8, 1959) is an American actor. He made his film debut in Reckless (1984). He has starred in over 80 feature films, including Desperately Seeking Susan (1985), The Mission (1986), Stakeout (1987), Avalon (1990), Benny & Joon (1993), Legends of the Fall (1994), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), Michael Collins (1996), Practical Magic (1998), Song for a Raggy Boy (2003), Wild Child (2008) and Unknown (2011).

Quinn has received two Primetime Emmy Award nominations for his work in An Early Frost (1985) and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007). He played Captain Thomas "Tommy" Gregson in the CBS television series Elementary (2012–2019).

Early life
Quinn was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Irish Catholic parents. He was raised in Chicago and Rockford, Illinois, as well as in Dublin and Birr, County Offaly, Ireland. His mother, Teresa, was a homemaker, but also worked as a bookkeeper and in the travel business, and his father, Michael Quinn, was a professor of English literature at Rock Valley College. When he was nineteen and working as a roofer, Quinn realized he wanted to become an actor. He trained at the Piven Theatre Workshop.

He has three brothers and a sister. His older brother, Declan Quinn, is a cinematographer, and his younger sister, Marian, is an actress, director and writer. His brother Paul, an actor and director, died in 2015 at the age of 55.

Career
His first significant film role was in Reckless, followed by a breakthrough role in Desperately Seeking Susan as the character "Dez" (the love interest of the character played by Rosanna Arquette). Quinn next starred in the controversial television film An Early Frost, about a young gay lawyer dying of AIDS (it was broadcast on NBC on November 11, 1985, and co-starred Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazzara and Sylvia Sidney). He received his first Emmy Award nomination for the role. He made a short, well received  contribution as Robert De Niro's brother in The Mission. He played escaped convict Richard "Stick" Montgomery in the action comedy Stakeout opposite Richard Dreyfuss and Emilio Estevez.

In 1983, Quinn lost the role of Jesus Christ when Paramount Pictures dropped the distribution rights to the Martin Scorsese movie The Last Temptation of Christ. When Universal Pictures picked up the film, the role went to Willem Dafoe. In the meantime, Quinn starred as the protagonist in the film Crusoe, finished in 1989.

During the 1990s, he appeared in Legends of the Fall, Benny & Joon, The Handmaid's Tale, Haunted and Practical Magic. He also starred in Michael Collins, Song for a Raggy Boy, This Is My Father, and Evelyn. He had a cameo appearance as the captain of a doomed Arctic vessel in the Francis Ford Coppola-produced adaptation of Frankenstein.

In 2000, Quinn portrayed Paul McCartney in the VH1 television drama Two of Us.

Quinn played Kerry Max Cook in the 2005 movie The Exonerated, a true story about people on death row who had been freed.

Quinn played the main character on the NBC drama The Book of Daniel in 2006. After the first three weeks of its run, the show was canceled, and its last five episodes never aired. In 2007, Quinn received his second Emmy nomination for the television movie Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

In 2010, he played a cameo role as William Rainsferd in the French-made film Sarah's Key, set during World War II.

He starred as Dermot opposite Taylor Schilling (Abby) in the Canadian-Irish drama film Stay (2013).

Quinn co-starred in the CBS Television series Elementary.

Personal life
In 1987, Quinn married his Stakeout co-star Elizabeth Bracco (sister of actress Lorraine Bracco). They have two daughters: Mia (b. 1998) and Ava Eileen (b. 1989), who has autism. Ava appeared as the baby "David" in Avalon, and Mia played a ghost in The Eclipse. Former residents of Englewood, New Jersey, Quinn and his family now live in Palisades, Rockland County, New York, and Marbletown in the Catskills / Woodstock region of Ulster County, New York.

As an avid sports fan, Quinn supports the Chicago Cubs, the Green Bay Packers, Michael Jordan, Rory McIlroy, and Roger Federer.

Philanthropy
Quinn has participated in charity golf events for the East Lake Foundation, a community redevelopment program, and Samuel L. Jackson's "One for the Boys" campaign about testicular cancer awareness. In 2010, Quinn attended a premiere benefit screening of A Shine of Rainbows for the International Children's Media Center (ICMC) and The American Ireland Fund (AIF). In 1991, he read a segment from Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis as part of MTV's "Books: Feed Your Head" literacy promotion PSAs.

Quinn spoke at the 2003 "Night of Too Many Stars" gala benefiting The Autism Coalition. He was an honorary board member of the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), which merged with Autism Speaks.

title: Aidan Quinn


text:
User talk:AMR

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

Other Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || What Wikipedia is not

Maintenance: Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload, otherwise we won't be able to use those images in many versions of WP.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~ . This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   15:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could use more engineers around here...

title: User talk:AMR


text:
User talk:Zoganes

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

Other Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || What Wikipedia is not

Maintenance: Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload, otherwise we won't be able to use those images in many versions of WP.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~ . This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   15:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Genesis Ghostbusters.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Genesis Ghostbusters.png. 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 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 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 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Zoganes! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jez San -
 * 2) David Crane (programmer) -

Non-free rationale for File:Mondo2000 13.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mondo2000 13.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zoganes


text:
User talk:Palexa

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Re: the hottentot venus
Looks like your problem has already been fixed. Generally, if you need to move a page to another location, you can use the move page tab, but if there's already a page there, then the two will need to be moved. Luckily, we already had a page on the same woman, so your information could just be included there. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Palexa


text:
Talk:Mayak

Old talk
I question the NPOV of this article a bit, I have difficulty justifing some of the statments made by any site other than greenpeace (which is listed thrice as a reference) and I do not really consider greenpeace to be a source of reliable and unbiased information.--Matthew 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, Greenpeace has no business at PA Mayak. Unfortunately, Greenpeace has targeted Sellafield and Mayak for its agenda. Both sites suffered an incident in 1957, long before Greenpeace. Mayak is a large operation with multiple facilities and activities, it is not a "nuclear dump". If you operate a nuclear site since the ~1940s, your technology and knowledge (e.g. health physics, safety) is not comparable to today's standards. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

More old talk
This could be a fine article. There's plenty of encyclopedia quality sources easily available via a goole search. Here are some I'd start with:

 * Mayak's Walking Wounded | The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
 * The last paragraph of this: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/29/gpprotnucwaste.shtml

JesseW 20:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving the External link from Cephalic_disorder here. Greenpeace Mayak web site (Warning: Graphic Images) As

 * I've now written a stub for the article, and included these references, although it would be good if someone would go through them and pull out more information about the article. JesseW 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * There is also a good amount of information relating to health effects available from peer-reviewed journal articles (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=mayak%20radiation). Maybe some of this could be incorporated? Jimjamjak (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Mayak is monitored by official departments. The site is employer to thousands of people. For comparison, ex Windscale now Sellafield has ~40k employees including supply chain. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional old talk
In the german article it is stated as the biggest nuclear accident, as the contamination of the surroundings was two to six times higher as that of chernobyl. -- Lightkey 11:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * HWL tank exploded. Documented in Bradley and by the NAS, END POINTS. Mayak is operational today, see Mayak Reporting. The topic "USSR waste" is beyond a single article "Mayak". Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The 1957 Mayak Incident
I've given this entry my considered attention, even though I am no authority on Mayak and on the 1957 incident, because I believe that that incident was a major event in the Cold War, although one not owned up to as such. It could well be that the Mayak incident released more radiation than Chernobyl. For years, I thought that the 1957 incident took place in Sverdlovsk. I first encountered "Mayak" and "Chelyabinsk" while researching this article -- Concerned Cynic.
 * See my comment above with sources. The topic USSR waste was critically investigated in 1990s with fall of USSR. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Date of official acknowledgment
The article says ""Only in 1992, shortly after the fall of the USSR, did the Russians officially acknowledge the accident". But an article in German newspaper "Die Welt" (http://www.welt.de/data/1996/04/09/686606.html, linked from article in de.wikipedia) :

"Doch erst im Juli 1989 - mit 32 Jahren Verspätung - informierte das in der Sowjetunion nach dem Unglück von Tschernobyl neu geschaffene Ministerium für Atomenergie die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) über das Unglück."

("Only in July 1989 - 32 years late - did the ministry of nuclear energy (newly created in the SU after the Chernobyl disaster) inform the IAEO about the accident").

Which is correct, 1989 or 1992? sleske 2006-04-27

Rationale for Keeping Mayak Secret Proven or Supposition?
"...the CIA knew of the 1957 Mayak accident all along, but kept it secret to prevent adverse consequences for the fledgling USA nuclear industry. "Ralph Nader surmised that the information had not been released because of the reluctance of the CIA to highlight a nuclear accident in the USSR, that could cause concern among people living near nuclear facilities in the USA" (Pollock 1978: 9)"

So first we have the article saying that it was kept secret for industrial reasons, and then as evidence states that Nader only surmised that this was the case. Do we have any concrete sources stating the articles conclusion, or only might have beens?
 * MSTCrow 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

rm dab
Removed: :''This article is about a nuclear factory. Mayak (meaning "the beacon") is also a radio station in Russia, operating since 1964. '' - Disambiguate only if there is an article. Femto 11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mayak means "light house". It is several facilities, including reactors and reprocessing plants. This comment is over a decade ago and lapsed. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

More incidents
Mark Hertsgaard, writing recently in The Nation ("Return to Chelyabinsk", posted October 26, 2006, published in the November 13, 2006 issue) says that the 1957 accident is only a small part of the story on nuclear disaster and radiation pollution:

"The Mayak nuclear complex, located fifty miles north of the city, suffered the first of its three nuclear disasters in 1949, when officials started pouring nuclear waste directly into the Techa River, which runs through the complex. According to studies by Russian experts and scientists with the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, 28,000 people received average individual doses fifty-seven times greater than those later received at Chernobyl. Only 7,500 people were evacuated, and people were not forbidden to use the river water until 1953. The second disaster was in 1957, when a waste dump exploded, spewing some seventy-five metric tons of radioactive waste into the air, exposing 272,000 people to doses of radiation equivalent to those at Chernobyl. The third came in 1967, when a cyclone whirled across the drought-exposed shores of a lake being used as a waste dump; 5 million additional curies of radioactivity were dispersed."

There's quite a bit else that looks useful in his article. I'm not at all knowledgable on this topic, so I'm just leaving this note here to suggest that as a source for people who are working on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Chernobyl
If this article is accurate, I don't see how it can be claimed that Chernobyl was worse. Hundreds of people dying vs 56 deaths, mostly of firefighters at Chernobyl. Now that new, more accurate data about Chernobyl has come to light, that the estimates of thousands of cases of cancer and thyroid damage were seriously overstated for political purposes of the day, maybe it is time to recognize this officially and set the record straight. Gigs 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you've been mislead. The oft cited UNSCEAR report puts the current death toll of Chernobyl at 56 but the final death toll at ~4000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.194.33 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I can't find that particular figure in the UNSCEAR report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf). It seems to me that they report a certain number of deaths, postulate that other deaths were probably caused by exposure to radiation at relatively low doses, but that results of any predictive modelling are not reported due to the very high degree of uncertainty associated with the methods used. All that said, I don't think that this reflects on "which accident was worse" - there are all manner of other aspects to consider in such an assessment of overall impact.Jimjamjak (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Still secret and fairly underestimated
I couldn't believe what I was reading here, English Wikipedia does not reflect even a fraction of what really means Mayak. Chernobyl is nothing against it. For all you people able to read german, please verify the german version, which gives very accurate information about dimensions of Radiation arround Mayak and the Karatschai lake. Recently, there was an international study, which indicated that the Karatschai lake is the most poluted spot on earth. If you ever visit this place, the max limit to stay and not to die by guarantee, is between 5 and 15 mins. If you stay longer, you will not survive the next hour. This is really no exageration, please verify the german site. But I guess my discomposure is understandable. --194.203.215.254 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This Person speaks the truth. Also perhaps one should mention the Soviet Movie "Stalker" because the Area around Mayak was a big inspiration for the mysterious and deadly "zone" in this movie.92.192.41.123 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, don't dramatize. I know many people working at Mayak for years so I can say with confidence that "the Area around Mayak" has nothing to do with "the Area around Chernobyl" - the radiation levels are not comparable! Certainly if you are not going to swim in Karatschai lake or Techa river. 217.197.1.215 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do people live there?
How is the plant used today to make Tritium if it's dangerous for people to drive their cars with the windows down even hundreds of miles away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.188.237 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get that either. Apparently the town closest to the plant still has many thousands of inhabitants, and officially is recognized as a city since 2004. 213.89.222.42 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Russia afterall so anything is possible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1wo5s3Ua4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.173.159 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They do. Also, the local large towns - Chelyabinsk and Ekaterinburg have the higher level of radiation than Ozyorsk. The area of radioactive hazard - mostly forests and fields - is called as "Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace" and not many habited. 217.197.1.215 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's numerous evacuated villages around the areas contaminated with radiation.

New buildings
If you compare current google maps images to old ones you can see that east of the "Fissile material storage facility" there are a couple of new buildings. Does anyone have information about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCH (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The FMSF was still under construction at the time the NASA World Wind Images were shot. It was completed in the meantime, which you can see on the current Google images. However, there are no free up-to-date aerial images available. --JanRieke (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FMSF was completed. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Third worst...
I don't understand what is intended by the statement that, "Mayak was the site of the third-worst nuclear accident in history (after the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters)". In which way was it "less bad" than Fukushima and Chernobyl? In terms of net human health impacts? In terms of the scale of the accident(s)? Does this kind of sentence even make sense?Jimjamjak (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Which disaster is "the worst" (or second, third or whatever worst) is opinion. Which of the three examples is the worst it open to debate and the whole idea will need rejigging should another such incident occur (which hopefully it won't.) So I have replaced "the worst" with "one of the worst" which is, I think, something few would take issue about. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed, "worst" is a subjective term. In terms of the INES scale, Mayak's the 3rd "worst" behind Fukuskima and Chernobyl because they were the only level 7 INES events and Mayak was the only level 6. Three Mile Island was a level 5. In reality, Mayak should be a rock-solid 7 due to an explosion with massive onsite/offsite contamination and multiple deaths. Fukushima really ought to be a 5 and Three Mile Island a 4, since both were partial meltdowns where one caused severe onsite/mild offsite contamination with onsite radiation injuries and the other moderate onsite/no offsite contamination with no injuries. Either way, I'll reword it. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree with the refrasing of that sentence. Foxtrot are there any references that you can use to support that? If so it would be a good addition to the article.Millertime246 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RT-1 Reprocessing
Reprocessing plant at Mayak to begin reprocessing of VVER-1000 fuel. This does mean that Makak is extracting plutonium and uranium from the spent fuel. http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2016/12/reprocessing_plant_at_may.html kgrr  talk 19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, RT-1 is processing spent fuel. Yes, processing SNF means extracting fission products besides valuable fissile materials. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

FMSF
So did the Fissile Material Storage Facility ever get completed and put into operation? All the pictures here appear to show it under construction and are quite old. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's completed. Images of the Mayak are rare; the site was born in the ~1940s. Kr --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mayak


text: User talk:66.47.250.50

title: User talk:66.47.250.50


text:
User talk:Reallive

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Vanity pages
Please don't make an article about yourself...thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually wrong of me to assume it's you...but either way, please make sure that you only add articles about people who are notable. Thanks again. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop adding non-notable people to articles. We can keep on playing this game of me reverting your edits, but I think that it would be easier if you just read over some of Wikipedia's policies, especially this one. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pal. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bermudashorts.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bermudashorts.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reallive


text:
Henry Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare

Henry Campbell Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare, (19 June 1851 – 20 February 1929), styled The Honourable from 1873 to 1895, was a British soldier and peer.

Background
Born in Merthyr Tydfil, Bruce was the eldest son of Henry Bruce, 1st Baron Aberdare, who had served as Home Secretary. His mother Annabella was his father's first wife and the daughter of Richard Beadon. He was educated at Rugby School and at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. In 1895, he succeeded his father as baron.

Career
His military career, by virtue of his status in the nobility, was started early: he served in the Welch Regiment and became a major of the 3rd Battalion in 1899. A year later he was appointed its honorary lieutenant-colonel and in 1910 honorary colonel of the 5th Battalion. Later Bruce was promoted to lieutenant colonel of the 3rd Battalion. He was decorated with the Volunteer Decoration.

Bruce was president of University College as well as of the National Museum Wales. He was a Justice of the Peace, assigned to Glamorgan and represented the county first as Deputy Lieutenant from December 1901, later as Vice Lord Lieutenant.

He was a member of the London Survey Committee, a voluntary organisation publishing architectural surveys of the capital.

Family

He married Constance Mary, daughter of Hamilton Beckett on 10 February 1880. The couple had nine children together, five sons and four daughters.
 * Henry Lyndhurst Bruce (25 May 1881 – 14 December 1914), m. 1906 Camille Clifford, a Belgian-born stage actress and the most famous model for the "Gibson Girl" illustrations
 * Margaret Cecilia Bruce, m. 1904 Orlando Bridgeman, 5th Earl of Bradford
 * Clarence Bruce, 3rd Baron Aberdare (born 2 August 1885) m. 1912 Margaret Bethune Black, m. 1957 Griselda Harriet Violet Finetta Georgina Hervey
 * Violet Bruce
 * John Hamilton Bruce (born 14 June 1889)
 * Eva Isabel Marion Bruce, m. 1911 Algernon Strutt, 3rd Baron Belper, m. 1924 Harry Primrose, 6th Earl of Rosebery
 * Constance Pamela Alice Bruce, m. 1919 Edward Digby, 11th Baron Digby
 * Victor Austin Bruce (born 8 April 1897 – 1978) m. 1926 Mildred Mary Petre, known as Mrs Victor Bruce (10 November 1895 – 21 May 1990) record-breaking racing motorist, speedboat racer and aviator.
 * Robert Bruce

His oldest son and heir apparent Henry was commissioned a captain in the 3rd Battalion, Royal Scots, but was killed in action soon after the First World War broke out. Bruce died himself in St George Hanover Square, London, on 20 February 1929 and was succeeded in the barony by his second son Clarence. His granddaughter, Pamela Digby, became American Ambassador to France.

title: Henry Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare


text:
User talk:H7akim

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

Other Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || What Wikipedia is not

Maintenance: Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload, otherwise we won't be able to use those images in many versions of WP.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~ . This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   15:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:H7akim


text:
Komplett

Komplett AS is a Norwegian e-commerce company with nine webshops in 3 countries in Scandinavia. The main part of their product assortment is computers and components, but they have also expanded to include photographic, Hi-Fi, TV, gaming and white goods. The headquarters are located in Sandefjord, Norway where the company was founded. In addition to their Norwegian operations, Komplett also runs webshops in Sweden and Denmark, and distribution in Norway through the channels Norek and Itegra. Komplett has three call centers for sales and support in Sandefjord, Norway and Gothenburg, Sweden. Komplett has a distribution center and warehouses in Sandefjord, Norway. Company turnover in 2015, was 7.3 billion NOK with 800 employees and 1 800,000 active customers.

Awards
Komplett was awarded the Farmand Prize (awarded by Farmand Activum) for best website in 2007 and they won the Gulltaggen the same year in the category Interactive Advertiser of the Year 2007.

title: Komplett


text:
Category:Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism

A Graduate School of Columbia University, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is the only journalism school in the Ivy League.


text:
User talk:Bendsley

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

Other Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || What Wikipedia is not

Maintenance: Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload, otherwise we won't be able to use those images in many versions of WP.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~ . This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   15:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wireless Domain Services
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Wireless Domain Services  article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! DoctorElmo 06:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bendsley