User talk:GiaHova

JW congregational discipline

Your edits at Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline have been reverted. Your first edit repeated material about shunning in the first paragraph that was already present in the second paragraph. Your second edit incorrectly suggested an explicit requirement to 'verbally state agreement to obey the 8 member governing body', which is a misleading simplification. Both edits added extraneous detail that is not necessary in the lead, with an emotive tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you disagree, you may like to discuss further at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have once again been reverted. You seem to imagine that it is very important that a perceived injustice be emphasised in the lead of the article. However, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to ‘right great wrongs’, and your behaviour is tendentious. The article body already covers the specifics. Wikipedia isn’t a soapbox. If you want to be outspoken about the subject, you can start your own website. —Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No perceived injustice here. You simply are covering up and watering down the truth to give any reader anywhere in this article the idea that shunning is only a congregational matter! I didn't know you were the God of the JW Wilkepedia page. You really ought to do a bit of research and you would know how important this issue is! Shunned members care little about being shunned by the congregation.. they WANT to leave. It is the shunning by their families that is so psychologically harmful. I'm not going to play games. You win! And YOU will bear the responsibility of putting out misleading info that is harmful!!! GiaHova (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, GiaHova!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Clovermoss (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Clovermoss

I agree that some of your edits should not have stayed in the article. I also think Jeffro77 made a valid argument about Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. That said, I do think the article-in-question could be improved through a discussion on the relevant talk page. Linking to recordings about the proceedings aren't really what would be covered in an article like this, but focusing on independant and reliable sources like this [1][2][3] are more likely to get you somewhere in regards to clarification that people are shunned by even family and there are likely reputable scholarly sources or something of that nature that talk about the pyschological harm of this practice.

Please try to be civil. It's very important. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so sometimes people with very different perspectives on things can interact. If you're curious, look at the history of a controversial topic like Talk:Abortion. People try to calmly discuss how the article-in-question is factually accurate and written in a neutral point of view. If you have any questions, please ask me. I'll try to explain how things work here in a way that makes sense. I also want to say that I have empathy for other individuals... if you are currently being shunned by your family and this is why this subject is so important to you, I get that. The process of being shunned is a deeply upsetting experience. If you ever want to talk to me about that, you can email me. Clovermoss (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiaHova, you still there?

The stuff you said indicates you feel strongly about JWs (maybe you've gone through something). Honestly, I'm a lil concerned. You sounded very stressed. The change you proposed is actually being discussed at the talk page and if you ask me, it'll probably be added. I hope you come back to editing. Take care. — Python Drink (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]