Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Suggest collapsing of sub-headings in the beliefs section

There's another whole page about beliefs anyway. Something that seems to be missing from the pages is a sense of connectedness - how it all fits together. So far I haven't found anything about the vindication of Jehovah's universal sovereignty. I would have regarded that as one of the key points of the doctrine. It's the "why, God?" question. In fact, this section could be re-termed "World view" or something like that, as sort of an introduction to the separate beliefs page.

When Jehovah's Witnesses go to the door, they typically don't say, "Do you believe that Jesus is God? Let me show you what the Bible says." That waits until they're getting invited in every week. The world view is what they start with. "Look at this picture of Paradise. What do you think we need in order for the whole world to be like this?" !!

Mandmelon (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I've written an intro now. My suggestion is that (for those who know what I'm talking about) this page be those beliefs that are basic enough that you would need to know them to go out witnessing and that the other page be those beliefs that you would come across in preparation for baptism or further study. That's just my way of explaining what the content could be, not the style or format, obviously.

Mandmelon (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

JW racism in the controversies section of the general article

I think that the issue of racism and Jehovas witnesses should also be in the controversies section of the general Jehovas Witnesses article. There is racism today in the Jehovas Witnesses movement and it should be in this section. User:Jeffro77 deletes it always.Cmmmm 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cmmmm cites quotes that are nearly 100 years old representing views that have been long discarded by JWs. Any racism that currently exists is not endorsed by the leadership, and is at the same level as racism that might occur among any other social grouping. The issue is not notable enough to be mentioned on the general JW article. If the century-old racist comments need be mentioned at all, it should be at the Controversies article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm

In a review of one work written by Afro-American Witness Firpo Carr--who attempted in his book to rationalize why there have not been any blacks on the Watchtower's governing body--Watters concludes "his most astounding claim is that there WAS a black man on the Governing Body--William K. Jackson! ...Having known Bill Jackson from my six years at Bethel (1974-1980) and [I could not understand how he came to this conclusion because] he was as white as a sheet with no black features whatsoever." Carr's only evidence was that Bill Jackson "openly stated that he was black" to which Watters adds, "That is news to all of us who worked at Bethel. Perhaps Carr needs a second book to correct the incredible fantasies of his first one, if the Watchtower doesn't disfellowship him first" (1993:11). In response to this book, Jones wrote:

A person may identify as a particular ethnicity if they have grandparents or even further removed ancestors of a particular race, and not necessarily exhibit significant characteristics. It is not for 'Jones' to determine how Jackson self-identifies. In any case, it is irrelevant to the argument that the religion is necessarily racist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing from another "Black American Perspective," I can tell you that "blacks" are still second-class in the Watchtower movement regardless of what Firpo states. Only very recently has the Watchtower ventured to place "blacks" in its regional management posts--i.e.: circuit or district overseer--in its Southern territories of the USA. Also, from the representative stance, the Governing Body lacks Asian, Hispanic, and "black Americans." ... the latest slew of "young people" articles ... bombast a popular and predominantly "black" music form ("rap" music) [shows] ... the Watchtower's strong, white, middle-class orientation. It notes very little on the more acceptable "white" suburban music forms of country, modern rock, metal, pop, etc. but focuses on the suburban white, middle-class "fear"--black rappers invading the white home. Additional evidence of the Watchtower's "white,""good ole boys" club mentality (1993:9).

The Governing Body also lacks midgets, but that doesn't necessarily indicate discrimination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment was made by Jones in 1993.Cmmmm 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The material quoted above has no connection with JW doctrine or policy, and lacks credibility as a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff, to include the matter on this article constitutes undue weight. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cmmm, you're right. This is current. Also, Jeffro77's comment about midgets is irrelevant. Not only are there more blacks than midgets represented in the general population, there's also a noticeably high representation of blacks among Jehovah's Witnesses as well. I don't know if Carl or Jeffro have seen the picture of the alleged black member of the Governing Body. He's as white as a sheet and, in any case, the level of racism would be measured by what other people thought of his racial origin. However, this page is already overly long. I would support an introduction to the overall subject of controversy on this page, such as I have included at the top of the controversies page, including the accusation of racism. The accusation has certainly been made more than once, and less than 100 years ago.

Mandmelon (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to 'midgets' was hyperbole, which evidently you have misinterpreted as a statistical comparison. The point is, a conclusion of causality (the postulation that racism is the reason for having no black people in the GB) is being drawn without any evidence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not object to having this issue included in the Controversies article. What I objected to was 1) It is not significant enough of a controversy for the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, and 2) parts of the text given by Cmmmm are not supported by the cited references, such as a 1914 Photo Drama seating issue supposedly implying segregations for a continuous period into the 1950s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement used in defense: "He's as white as a sheet and, in any case, the level of racism would be measured by what other people thought of his racial origin" is basically just offensive. It is racism on the part of the "other people" to form such judgements about an individual's heredity. I personally have friends who identify as Aboriginal, as it is part of their heredity though they don't have obvious physical traits of such. The absense of black people (or "blacks" as you say, which I also find offensive), or any other ethnic groups, in the Governing Body, of itself proves nothing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to necessarily debate the merits of any POV (at least this is only the discussion page). The accusation has been made and it was made in those terms. The evidence is what the secondary source needs to be able to present. We only need to show evidence that the secondary source exists and has been accepted in the academic community.

Actually, I was referring to your words: "I don't know if Carl or Jeffro have seen the picture of the alleged black member of the Governing Body. He's as white as a sheet and, in any case, the level of racism would be measured by what other people thought of his racial origin."--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the division of "significant" controversies on this page and "less significant" controversies on its own page to be a little provocative in itself. That's why I've been trying to use two different categorising systems - the one on this page being who the main players in the controversies are (there are less categories of these) and the one on the other page being the nature of the accusations made (there are more of them).

Mandmelon (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis for determining which controversies belong on the main page is basically restating what I've already said. Semantics. The fact remains that some of what Cmmmm wants listed under Racism is not appropriate, as per that Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen where persons other than white were granted eldership, while persons who are white were not. I also can write an article about this, and would likely find some publisher to publish it, maybe from the angle of how non-whites are taking over that religion. It is still just personal experience and inference. A POV quote of a POV source is still POV. Were the governing body interogated for that work? Did someone find rules in the JW's bylaws that state race matters? Is there a study of appointees that shows whites are routinely choosen to lead over other races? If such sources exist, then this is a more major issue. Without these, then I have to agree with Jeffro77's assessment. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what a POV source is.

Mandmelon (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly arguments here. In any case, current GB member Samuel Hird IS black. This is irrelevant however to supposed racism of JWs. I'm not a member of the GB, so are JWs prejudiced against Brisbane born intellectuals loving cricket? Actually Samuel Hird wasn't a member of the GB in 1993. But one would expect the opposers to have slightly more up to date info than that. It does appear that there are many afro-american bros in positions of responsibility in the US, I met one not long ago Leon Weaver, who was introduced as a member of the US branch committee. So the argument based on an empty premise anyway, is also based on factually incorrect info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.45.225 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Two new pages requested

I move to start two new pages - one on conscientious objection and one on the organisation of the preaching work.

Mandmelon (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Chryssides quotes

He says that "a number of splinter groups formed from the International Bible Students Association" and this has been put into the article. Why the IBSA? Wasn't this, and isn't it still, a European concern? Chryssides doesn't comment. I think another reference would be more suitable to explain.

Mandmelon (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

POV wording and incorrect quote of source

Holden in "Cavorting With The Devil" (not intended to be insulting; he's a Catholic sociologist and he's studied both Witnesses and ex-Witnesses) does not mention "proper worship," as if there is such a thing. The Jehovah section should go back the way it was. Besides, the current wording doesn't make any more comment on "use" than the old one did.

Thanks for the fixes in the controversies section. It reads better now.

However, it can't be stated as fact that predictions have been unfulfilled; that's interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses choose to believe that WWI fulfilled C.T. Russell's predictions (if not his expectations).

220.237.33.216 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They predicted that Armageddon would happen in 1914. It didn't happen, and the teaching was abandoned. There is nothing else to interpret.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely there is a better source for saying JWs believe it's important to use god's name than a title that refers to exJWs as 'cavorting with the devil'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. I saw the comment in the hidden text of the page. Are you saying that it's derogatory to Witnesses or to ex-Witnesses? The guy is a sociologist. I guess he's allowed to choose whatever title he wants.

Mandmelon (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to join the dots about who might consider it offensive. In any case, this is a prime example of where it would be completely acceptable (and preferable) to use a JW publication for pointing out one of their basic beliefs, rather than unnecessarily using an obscure third-party source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Salvation

The statement:

It has been noted that millenarianism is "necessarily collective in that the visions of the Messianic Kingdom depicted large numbers of faithful people enjoying salvation."

is unclear, and most readers will likely not understand it. If it belongs in the article at all, it does not belong in the first paragraph of the Salvation section.

I thought it summed up what Jehovah's Witnesses believe quite nicely. It's about millenarianism in general, obviously, not Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. However, the first sentence of the entire article states the JWs are millenarian. It paints a picture that's like the ones JWs have in their literature of all of these smiling happy people walking towards Paradise/mountain. That's a contrast to leaflets from born again sources that show individuals meeting their Maker/Jesus.

I think what the article is missing in general is the JW world view. I'm not so interested in deciphering what's going on inside the heads of each Witness, but their pictures certainly do tell a story about why the beliefs are attractive to people.

Mandmelon (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources unnecessarily implying controversy

There are a few references addressing relatively mundane topics that have been selected from titles that unnecessarily imply bias against JWS, where other references are almost certainly available. For example, backing up the belief that JWs must use the name Jehovah in their worship hardly requires deferring to the potentially provocative title, "Cavorting With the Devil: Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Abandon Their Faith", or using "Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement" to indicate that JWs don't believe in "once saved, always saved". If such works are the only source of such information, then fine, but there is no point in being unnecessarily controversial. Furthermore, as previously stated, JW publications are the most authorative source when discussing what JWs believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never once seen in Wikipedia guidelines that reliable, third party sources (or any other kind) need to be selected on the basis of their title. Haven't you ever heard that you can't judge a book by its cover? The "once saved, always saved" comment is quite relevant, except that, now that I look it, it falls into the category of what Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe. On the same basis, mention of the Trinity was omitted, so I'll take it out. Besides that, I think interfaith needs to be taken out of this page for the same reason. From memory, I think the Relationship with Governments section could be reviewed to ensure that it only contains what Jehovah's Witnesses do believe about governments as well.

As previously stated both here and on the JW project discussion page, I agreed that using JW publications was "natural" but not "necessary." Don't tell me agreement has been reached when it hasn't. There are a few reasons why I don't see why the beliefs section needs to be an exception to the preference for secondary, third-party sources. The section, as written, is neither comprehensive nor particular what about JWs believe. God's Kingdom and the ransom don't have their own headings (despite the first being the theme of the Watchtower and the second being a defining point in C.T. Russell's path), and the vindication of God's sovereignty was missing completely. Besides that, the holy spirit had nothing to do with Jesus - even the Require brochure has no mention of the holy spirit on the Jesus page. Neither has it been written as the exception to the rest of the article/s. They're all full of Watchtower Society references. When this section starts looking like the exception to the rule and represents the beliefs of JWs more comprehensively and particularly, then I think the claim of JW publications to being more appropriate for use here would have justification.

Mandmelon (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to when you say: "Don't tell me agreement has been reached when it hasn't."--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeffro77's comments, where weaselliness does exist, yes, in the spirit of wikipedia.org, I would suggest using sources that do not present such an obvious bias right in their titles. This particular type of weaselliness may not be specifically forbidden, but it definantly is not in keeping with the spirit of the rules. There are definately other sources that should be used in favor over these (sources that present less of POV). — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have questioned the notability of interfaith (at least in my own mind). Yes, JWs make comments about avoiding such. But why is this notable? I was not be opposed to the removal of the interfaith section. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, if you feel notable topics need to be added, then let's do so. In such cases, I would suggest that NPOV 2nd and 3rd party sources would be valuable to establish notability. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, I don't understand the foundation for your last sentence at all. You are no more a judge of that than the any of the other editors. Please remember we all have the same overall goals with regard to this article. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes since last night

1. The new intro is great.

2. I don't know why people feel the need to reformat what other people have written, except for clarity, or to provide references. Otherwise, the meaning changes and there should be discussion about it. I feel hesitant to revert the changes that other people have made to what I wrote last night. I assume they had reasons. I just don't know what they are. I'm actually surprised because I thought the bit that's remained as the intro for the beliefs section was the most controversial bit. I thought it would get chopped first, but it's sitting right up there, plus with the reference pulled out and put into the main text. People do realise JWs are accused of believing they need to work for their salvation, don't they?

The intro was intended to put the beliefs into context by discussing significance and implications. Besides that, JWs typically don't go straight into a discussion of their theology when introducing themselves to others. They typically start by talking about their world view. If it doesn't appear here, where is it going to go in?

Mandmelon (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "who" tag put into the "rational" religion line, the answer was at the end of the sentence. It was referenced twice. In response to "clarifyme," the "rational" comment referred to a mainly literal interpretation of the Bible, similar to the quote used (from the same person in a different work) at the end of the sentence. I've changed the wording to "due to their" to reflect the meaning of the "rational" quote.

On second thoughts, the first para looks a bit POV. Besides that, Creator is not in CAPS, so it looks like it's talking about the creator (founder) of the religion. I don't know how you would define Jehovah so early on in the piece easily. "God" would be preferable. It's not that I disagree with the POV, but it seems a bit pedagogical for it to be placed under the main heading, rather than under its own heading. I think secular wording should be used as far as possible. Anything about the "higher realm" just seems to be a bit up-front at the beginning. I just read a comment last night by a Witness apologist, Johannes Wrobel. He was saying that the "Stand Firm" video is not propaganda because the subjects of God, Jesus, the Bible were not mentioned much to describe why Jehovah's Witnesses did what they did. I'm not sure if I agree with his reasons now, but I remember thinking it was a good one when I watched it (I was a Witness then).

Mandmelon (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a POV in the opening paragraph, presumably the section about the sole visible channel. This is fundamental to Jehovah's Witnesses' belief and quite distinct from the view of most other religions. The reference to the Scottish court case is highly relevant to the previous point about allegations of unquestioning obedience. Again, this is an outlook not shared by most religions, and the previous claims, fully cited, that members must obey fully, are therefore admitted by the organisation hierarchy. I'm baffled at why someone deleted all my edits and reverted to a lead section that failed to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD. Please note the opening paragraph of WP:LEAD and its recommendation that "notable controversies" be mentioned. I have done this while maintaining a neutral tone. LTSally (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the intro is hella POV. It takes for granted that Jehovah is God and that he is the Creator of everything. This can be stated in much more neutral language with the same overall meaning. I am OK with the rest of the intro, with the minor objection to the use of quoted words. If these are terms that are being used in some special way, that needs to be identified some how, or other more common terms need to be used instead. The quotations of single words is confusing at best. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One more comment about the second sentence, we (collectively) removed a comment about JW's believing that all other religions are false. I would suggest that the second sentence is along the same time of lines. I think the intro looks fine without it included at all, but if something has to be said, let's say in not JW terms and as NPOV as possible. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence is killing me. I'm removing it for now. I'm not opposed to this information being in the article, but it has to be stated in terms that are more commonly understood and from a NPOV. It is also a better fit with the last paragraph instead of the lead, in my opinion. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the sentence referring to the Witnesses' belief in their religion being the sole channel used by God today is "killing you", this fact is one of the most distinctive points about the religion. Unlike most religions, Jehovah's Witnesses believe God speaks to mankind through that organisation, and that organisation alone. I'll try to remove the JW buzzwords as much as I can, but it's important to retain the fact in terms that match as closely as possible the way they see it, or the sentence will be interpretive. Suggestions that use of the term "the Creator, Jehovah" are a point of view are ridiculous. It's a given that a Christian denomination believes (a) in God and (b) that God is the creator. To have to pose their belief in God as nothing more than a claim would be ludicrous. LTSally (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LTSally, you are making a judgement call putting your POV over and above other editors here, and making more of the material that the material itself suggests. It is noncontextual where it currently is. It interrupts the flow of the introduction. It uses confusing terminology that only JW's even understand. To explain the terminology would require paragraphs upon paragraphs of explanation that simply do not belong in the header. I am removing it for these reasons. If better wording is availble, I am not opposed to its inclusion in the lead for the most part. As for the quoted material, a more appropriate placement of this material has to be found, as it is something which presents an argument and is certainly not a NPOV tone. Please discuss you're proposals here for edits to the lead so we can go over wording to make sure it is clear to people who are not familar with JW's. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the lead paragraph Wikipedia page. I hadn't read it before. I'm not comfortable with using a source to incriminate itself. I know that the reason I left the Witnesses was because of the Witness reading of Jeremiah 29:10 failing to equal the 69 years and five months' stay in Babylon required if the Jews were away from Jerusalem for 70 years and two months (but I haven't found a source that says so, apart from just reading WTS publications and putting two and two together, so I haven't put it in). That left no support for the 1914 doctrine which is another teaching unique (in the main) to Jehovah's Witnesses, and one that means a lot more to me. If the "sole channel" teaching is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd be interested in the knowing the source that says it, and using that source instead. I'd also be interested in knowing how the available literature supports the conclusion that this is the most important or distinctive controversy about JWs. I thought the Catholic Church believed that they speak for God too. They have participated in interfaith though, I guess.

I think I'd prefer to see a list of the main controversies. In fact, there's more to a controversy than what the criticism is. For example, you could describe the blood transfusion issue as a "decades-long, medicolegal controversy." Some background info about when it began - Chicago Blood Bank and WTS response - and some details like that (perhaps major works that have discussed it?) would describe the controversy without putting a claim from either side out there. Personally, if I want to get into any of these subjects, I'll read a book about it. I don't want Wikipedia to try to convince me either way.

Mandmelon (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "who" tag - nothing answered that question. Sure, it was referenced by a certain book but was the author making that call or did he merely report it? And who is that author? And such information does not belong merely in the footnote, it belongs into the text. Right now it just seems too weaselish to me, especially at such a prominent place of the article. IMHO it is better suited somewhere under bible interpretation (since that is the reason given for their being "rational") Str1977 ^(talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The term 'rational' needs to be better defined in the main text, otherwise it is subject to interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the word the author in question uses it is okay. But anyway, "rational" is mostly an empty phrase. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the term is not put in context in the article, readers may not interpret it in the intended sense. It could easily be construed as a POV argument of rationality on the part of members of the religion, rather than describing a method of scriptural interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from source requested

Reference to date in 1884 when Zion Watch Tower Tract Society was formed with Conley as president. My source, Holden, says it was incorporated that same year with Russell as president. Is this correct? What does the Proclaimers book say?

Mandmelon (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unverified sources

I would like to request that published source point back to their publication. Reprints in blogs, reference sites, and other wiki are fine as secondary sources (to make viewing of the material available online where it normally wouldn't be), but should not be the sole reference to the material. The links to private wikis are particularly highly suspect. Can we clean this up a bit? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph under beliefs is too...

The second paragraph of the Belief section seems to me to be a bit to coded in specialized terms to be of any value to someone without knowledge of Holden or JW's. Can we clarify this paragraph in more common terms? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Matter closed — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Point of view" in intro

There are repeated efforts to delete material from the intro to this article on the grounds that it is expressing a point of view. Please take careful note of what WP:POV says: "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." The material being deleted, without exception, are statements deemed by some editors to portray Jehovah's Witnesses in a negative light. They leave, however, material that portrays the religion in a positive light (bloodless surgery, civil liberties, conscientious objection, missionary activity). This is clearly a bias. A bias created by someone who accuses me of expressing a POV.

Neutrality is achieved by including both sides -- the negative and the positive. This is clearly stated in WP:NPOV and those editors continually deleting material that presumably offends their view of the religion need to acquaint themselves with that official policy. The editor who deleted the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused by the medical profession of coercing patients to refuse blood transfusions explained this deletion with the words: "b) The term "authoritarian" by Rick Ross site of a Vancouver journal is....)". He or she either misses the point or is making mischief. The website reproduces an article from a major Canadian newspaper that refers, in turn, to a paper in an academic journal. Both the Vancouver Sun and Paediatrics and Child Health are reliable sources and fully meet Wikipedia's requirements for secondary sources to verify material.

The same editor deleted, without explanation, facts gained from the transcript of a case in a Scottish law court. This transcript was adequately referenced. The facts contained in it are very important in adding information to an article on a religion that takes an unusually strict stand on insisting every one of its 7 million members agree with every one of its doctrines. The same religion makes the unusual claim that it, and it alone, is the channel of communication between man and God, and that no human can understand the Bible without its interpretation. Both these facts, fully citing their sources, were deleted with the following explanation: "The majority of religions believe that they are true and the others false". That's an opinion, and an unsubstantiated one. It's also no reason to delete those facts that, again help to define this religion. WP:LEAD says of the purpose of an article's intro: "It should establish the context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including notable controversies." Jehovah's Witnesses are notable for those facts. They were written fairly and not given undue weight.

I'd like to assume good faith in those edits, but I'm more inclined to believe a number of editors reverting sections of this article are more intent on making Jehovah's Witnesses look good and deleting anything critical about them. I will reinstate those facts I've mentioned. Please discuss them here before deleting them again. LTSally (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Message to the editor who deleted the section on sole visible channel belief with the explanation: "The reference is not third party as it appears in a JW publication. Removed." The source is Franz's book, which is an accepted secondary source. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I have reinstated the material. LTSally (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see comments above for original problems. I refute that the material in dispute is establishing the context, etc of the material in the spirit of NPOV and non-weasalliness. When 50% of the text was dedicated to argumentative statements while only 10% of the article even comes close to talking about it, there is the appearence of bias. Even that appearance should be avoided. Facts are the facts, yes. But there is ways to present them in a bias manner. The intro was crossing the line. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation is far from clear, but I concede your point that the second sentence of the intro may not be the best place to note this fact. I'll have another read through of the article and thnk about the best place to deal with it -- probably the section on "Avoidance of interfaith activity". LTSally (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not giving many comments when I feel that what I do is obvious. Allow me to make my point clear.

Can you imagine an introduction for the Catholic Church as such:

The Catholic Church is a world-wide Christian foundation with a historical continuation since the Apostolic times that has favored the use of Greek philosophy against the Bible, that has accepted many pagan religious elements to gain wide acceptance, that encourages idol-worship and has killed thousands of people who didn’t accept its doctrines, especially by means of the Inquisition. Catholic Archbishops had cooperation with Hitler and, generally speaking, the Catholic hierarchy has made extreme use of political power. Recently the official bank of Vatican was accused of dealings with arms trade.

Aren't all these things proven facts with vast bibliographical support? Of course they are. And such thoughts should be included in the article BUT NOT IN THE INTRODUCTION. Especially the introduction must not give the impression that the editor(-s) will try to praise or to condemn this organization.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad intro at all. There might be a few people who'd agree with it. Grimhim (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not proven facts, and if you wish to know the truth, you will debate the points you have listed with me at my user page. Gabr-el 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross 'controversy'

First off, I'm not entirely sure whether the controversy issues need to be listed in this article at all. I do think there should be a section, with a brief summary, and a redirect to the main article. I do not think it should be limited to only a 'See Also' at the bottom of the article.

However, regarding the 'cross' section, the wording was blatantly biased (aside from the fact that it also said JWs believe Jesus died on a cut of meat). At the religion's inception, the Bible Students did believe Jesus died on a cross and it appeared on their early magazines. They admit this in several publications, including their Proclaimers publication. The former belief has not been "obfuscated". It would be worth stating the change in doctrine about the cross as part of a section on changing doctrines, but it is not so big a 'controversy' to merit its own section, particularly on the general article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jen, you need to engage us on the talk page. Why do you feel a top-level article such as this one needs the detail you are including? This is not a matter of censorship or anything of the like. It is keeping this article as a summary, and breaking out into other articles for further detail. The JW controversy article is in-depth and the appropriate location for all this material. This article should have a beefy paragraph on controversy, and nothing more. This is standard practise for top-level articles. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the long list of uncited attacks. I myself am not a Jehovah witness, but I have never seen such an unpleasant attack. This "controversy" section needs some serious adjustments. The link is there anyways. Gabr-el 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the existing version isn't good, but I do agree with Jeff that it shouldn't be just the link. How is this; it's really nothing more than listing the TOC of the controversies page?: Jehovah’s Witnesses have been controversial in several ways, including: doctrinal differences with mainstream Christianity; their bible translation; their views on blood transfusion; their attitude towards other religions; racial discrimination; unfulfilled predictions and changes in doctrine; cult aspects; treatment of apostates; and sexual abuse. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Some items in the summary relate partly or wholly to the alleged actions of members, rather than any action, obligation, or doctrine of the organisation. In these instances, there needs to be verification that such claims are legitimate, that they are specifically results of being JWs, and that incidences are significantly higher than in the rest of society. Where an issue cannot be demonstrated to occur considerably more than in the rest of society, there is no true controversy. Note that I am not addressing here any elements of the following that specifically relate to the organisation. Regarding this issue, the main areas of concern from the list are:

racism
child neglect
having a high rate of mentally ill devotees

These issues require reliable unbiased sources if they are to be mentioned as notable controversies at all in regard to members rather than the organisation. The summary paragraph at this article also requires references for the rest of the claims as well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion above, Jeff? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree in concept, with very minor word changes in the first sentence. Should really be a ref for each item listed there (only one per item, since it's just a summary). 'Racial discrimination' does seem stick out in that list as underwhelmingly uncontroversial with regard to JWs among all the other issues listed. (I realise you're just quoting what's in the article.) There are possibly other entries that should be there, but certainly not all of the ones currently in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I would change "Jehovah’s Witnesses have been controversial in several ways" to something like "there have been several controversial issues relating to Jehovah's Witnesses".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I've implemented it, including your considerations. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the link to the Controversies article. This is in line with the WP procedure on split articles. LTSally (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices

The Beliefs and Practices section should be cut back considerably. Because it has its own split-off article, Wikipedia's guideline is that all that should remain in the main article is a summary. Clearly, what has remained in this article is more than that, a lengthy dot-point run-through of the Jehovah's Witness doctrines and beliefs. The "Salvation" section is longer than it is in the Beliefs and Practices article; "Ethics and morality" isn't even mentioned in the split article. The recent work on the "Controversy" section, which was cut back from a lengthy section to one compact paragraph because it has a split-off article, provides an interesting contrast with the treatment to date of the "Beliefs and practices" section. LTSally (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Beliefs' and 'Practices' sections should be cut back in this article. However, I don't think it should be treated in quite the same manner as the controversies section, because being an article about a religion, beliefs are intrinsic to the core of the topic, whereas controversies are somewhat ancillary.

The 'Beliefs and Pracitices' article does have a 'Morality' section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started some trimming of this section. I'll take this gently, in case there's any violent objection to what I've removed, but obviously some material has to go and I've targeted information that is, or should be, in the spin-out article but isn't essential for a summary of beliefs and practices. LTSally (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)