Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

How to archive JW talk pages

I'm putting this at the top of the talk page to help preserve it, hopefully it won't be another year before the talk gets archived. Our system is a bit different from the normal WP:ARCHIVE. Here's how:

- Create the page: Search Wikipedia for the archive you want to create (even though it doesn't exist yet e.g. "Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26") or click on an existing archive link, then enter the number of the archive you want to create in the URL (Change: ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_25 to ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_26)

- Add the text: Wikipedia will indicate that the page does not exist and provide you with the option: "Start the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26 page". Start the page, copy/paste (ctrl + c for copy, ctrl + v to paste) all the material from the current talk page that you want to archive.

- Add the templates: Before you save it add the following three templates to the very top of the page: {{talkarchive}} {{JWArchiveNav}} {{JWArchiveNotice}}. Preview, then save the page.

- Edit the {{JWArchiveNav}} template: (By now the archive page is already created, now we just need the link to archive page "26" to display on the main Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page). Wiki search for Template:JWArchiveNav (or click the link here), then go to "edit this page". Add another line of text (copy/paste an existing and just change the number to 26, don't forget the comma) e.g. From [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 25|25]] to [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 26|26]] (you may or may not need a comma at the end of the new line, just preview it first to make sure that the Archives 1-26 all display in one row). Save it, you're done. Duffer 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Christians (?)

As far as I know, the JW doesn't accept the term "Christian", and peoples that term themself "Christian" don't allege that the JW are christians, because of significant deviations in doctrine (nontrinitarist and such). Is there any academic reason that can justify their alleged Christian-ness in this article? That might be a justification, otherwise it is not accurate when JW are described as "Christians", very few would accept Wikipedia's deviant labeling. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Using WP:s own claims, "Christians" (I mean "trinitarians"), Arians, Unitarians, JWs and others are Nazarenes, adherents to Jesus, claiming him to be God or Godlike. Technical and an unusual terminology. I don't know if it's usable however, because of the risk for original research. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Jehovah's Witnesses do refer to themselves as Christian. A brief look at any of the publications will provide you with enough references to back this up.

Secondly, the definition of Christian according to Chambers Dictionary -

'someone who believes in, and follows the teachings and example of, Jesus Christ'

The definition alone does not provide dogmatic bias as to the role of Jesus, i.e. as part of a Trinity. Therefore doctrinal differences and claims by other groups of the validity of Jehovah's Witnesses use of the term Christian - are not a reason to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses actually are not Christian. In fact they fit the defintion as much as any other group. Jamie (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. :) Please refer to the discussion archives before continuing this conversation so that you may be informed as to the consensus. Then feel free to discuss if you have new items to be considered. Thank you. --Fcsuper (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, Fcsuper, but I can't be bothered looking at the archives personally, and yet the Wikipedia pages about Verifiability etc. are probably more relevant. Secondary sources are better than primary sources. A Watchtower source analysing the subject of Christianity and other references is better than a Watchtower source stating its beliefs. A third-party source would be even better. That means one that defines Jehovah's Witnesses, not one that defines Christian, Jamie. From Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006: "Jehovah's Witnesses - a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule."

Mandmelon (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, this arguement is expressed in the archives. A christian sect, by definition, is christian. The word sect is pejorative and provocative. In this context, it is out of place and pushes the article to a POV. POV statements (sourced or otherwise) are still POV. By the simpliest and most reliable secular sources, the definition of christian is inclusive of JW's. That said, this article does not seek to define what a christian is, so the topic itself is out of place in the article. There's lots of secular sources that state that the JW's are something or another that is christian (christian sect, christian-based, xtian movement, xtian organization, etc). It tends to be nonsecular and more POV sources (i.e., religious) that make distinctions between what "qualifies" a group to hold the "christian" label. Again, this discussion is out of place in this article. The current wording of the opening sentence is, in my opinion, the most NPOV and sourcable statement possible when trying to make a simple overview statement. More intricate appropriate details about the issue can be (and are) covered in the body of the article. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The term "sect" is not pejorative, since it's an accepted scientific term describing the relationship of a group of religious people to the surrounding society. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_classifications_of_religious_movements#The_church-sect_typology. Since JW is defined as a counterstance to mainstream religion, and have been labeled exclusionist, they're clearly a sect. I would argue that any millenialist movement under the guise of religion is a sect, as the millenialism in and of itself predicts a change in the stable-state of society, thus bringing it in opposition to the structure of the society as-is.

The term 'sect' often functions as a pejorative in popular usage. The fact that it has a technical definition does not alter that fact. The words 'bitch' and 'bastard' also have technical meanings, but that does not stop them being used as pejorative terms. Where there is likely to be confusion regarding what sense is intended by general readers, the term should be avoided, unless the intended meaning is explicitly defined.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Then make the term "sect" link to the definition above? Popular misuse is no reason to use imprecise terminology. Personally, I would refer to a female dog as a bitch, and a dog of mixed races as a bastard. No matter what they currently are taken to mean in popular culture. This is not MTV, this is an encyclopædia. Melpomenon (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A sect is a religious group that breaks away from another religion. Applying the technical definition of a sect to JWs is incompatible with them being restorationist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2) We are not theologians. Thus, we should not occupy ourselves by defining the true dogmas of Christianity, but refer to the common sociological approach to denominational discourses: That if a group of people denominate themselves and their religion as Christian/Buddhist/Muslim/etc., we should treat them as such. Otherwise, we would spur a debate over how large deviations are tolerated? And what is the correct Christian discourse? Catholicism? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Thus, I recommend keeping them described as a Christian Sect. Melpomenon (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They are Christian in that their beliefs plainly accept Jesus as the Messiah, which is the defining mark for any secular definition of Christianity. Superfluous theological definitions of what is required to be 'Christian' are irrelevant in a secular encylopedia. However, see notes on 'sect' above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So because Messianic Jews take Jesus to be the Messiah, they're Christians too? I doubt they would like being labeled that. Christian is as Christian does, and they call themselves Christians, thus they are Christians. And by the way - your definition isn't secular, it's a theological one ;) Melpomenon (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to confuse the issue with blurred lines regarding Jewish groups is irrelevant. JWs comply with any secular definition of Christianity (e.g. what would be found in a secular English dictionary under Christian). The main (possibly only) argument usually given to dispute their status as 'Christian' is the theological view about the Trinity. Since Unitarians are secularly considered Christian, there is no basis for not calling them Christian in a secular encyclopedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this myself. I think Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect, but they don't like being called it. What does the Reasoning book give as the reason? Does anybody know? Millenialist in itself implies Christianity (unless it's being used in the secular sense, which it's not.) I think I'm taking my cue from Wikipedia's advice not to describe any religion as fundamentalist, unless they really fit the definition. I don't think it's the dictionary-writers' feelings they're worried about. It's the possibly pejorative nature of the word to the people it's describing. I think the same consideration would apply to other words. Jehovah's Witnesses seem to feel the same about being called fundamentalist, a sect or a cult.

What about "faith"? Mandmelon (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving history up

Would there be any objections to moving the "History" section up before the "Beliefs" section (i.e. just switching the two sections' positions)? --Storkk (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I object only because of formatting of the article. There are tables in the history section that may squeeze up text with the JW tables at the top of the article. I consider beliefs and history to be of equal note, so formatting of the article should take precedence.--Fcsuper (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The formatting of the text wouldn't change. Now that no real objections have been raised, I'll perform the change... let's see what happens. --Storkk (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the motivation behind this? Ilkali (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to have the history before the beliefs, and there were no objections (Fcsuper changed his mind on my talk). I don't feel too strongly about it though-- neither, it seems does anyone else. Storkk (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we cut everything out of History that belongs under the pages for C.T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford? Mandmelon (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That should only be done if there were at least brief mention of them, and links to those main articles. A person wanting quick info on JWs should not have to jump back and forth through several articles for the quick facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for problems

There are a lot of problems with the current version of this article. The main one I'm seeing is that right now the article is heavily reliant on material published by the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. That violates WP:PRIMARY, and should be changed. --GoodDamon 19:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some poor (but well intentioned) edits being made to the article right now. I cannot tell who's who in making these edits, but an effort should be made to recover from them. I reverted the introduction paragraph, but other sections need improvement. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm short on time and don't have the resources at hand at the moment, but some of the more recently added edits to the history section appear to be lifted word for word from Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. That could present some copyright concerns. Also, it appears that almost all the further reading links at the bottom of the page are supportive of the religion (with the exception of Routledge's book), with only one link that takes readers to a "critical" page. Should not this page present the best material from all viewpoints in the futher reading section, not just from a supportive viewpoint? Dtbrown (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are many references for this article, as well as no small EL section, I'd like to call into question the need for a further reading section. Users can find out more by going to the referenced materials, as well as the ELs. Why bother with a FR section? If a given book is useful, then it should be used as a ref for something. Otherwise, it's as though we are advertising whatever works are included in the FR. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that since there are so many references, a short list of the most important books should be listed in a "Further Reading" list for those who don't want to dig through the footnotes. Perhaps 5 titles or so max. 05:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then won't people argue about which 5 or so should be in the further reading? I'd rather have a works cited list, as you would have footnotes as well as works cited in a university paper. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So any comments on what we should do? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the tagging of the history section (I put that tag there myself), but I disagree with the tagging of the beliefs section. In this case, it seems that JW sources would be the most reliable for JW beliefs. If anything is in question, I would suggest that perhaps there are some unnotable statements made in the beliefs sections, not that they are based on primary sources. I propose removing the tags from the beliefs sections. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines policy states: "Both [policies and guidelines] need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia." The best source of information about what JWs believe is found in their own publications. In such instances, practicality overrides policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Give my comments above here, I would like to remove the tags from the Beliefs sub-sections. Any comments on this? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support this move. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've left the tags in for history, organizational structure, and demographics, as it seems appropriate that sources of 3rd party research be provided to support the technical statements about JW's. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's tagged or not (I think I put them on there), but I disagree that Watchtower Society publications are necessary, or better than third-party publications, for the beliefs section. Reliability is determined by publisher, citations etc., not religious authority, affiliation with the subject or having the quality of a primary source. It would not be true to say, for example, that court documents should be preferred as a source over the work of those who analyse them, as if the comprehensiveness or closeness to the origin of the story were the important considerations; all primary sources have these characteristics. It doesn't negate the fact that secondary sources are preferable. Holden seems quite familiar with the major beliefs.

Mandmelon (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Watchtower publications are necessary, but they are reliable for this type of reference. Similarly, to look at Catholic belief, the CCC would be the best resource. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to edit for editors attempting to be neutral on the subject

I've been watching this article fairly closely over the past couple of weeks and as a neutral editor regarding the subject (my interest is in the academic study of religion) I have to say that it is becoming more likely all the time that I'm going to simply throw up my hands and walk away from it in despair. At the moment, as the template at the top indicates, the article appears to me to be overly dependent on non neutral sources for its information. Currently mostly acting as an apologetic instrument for believers, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of it being a neutral presentation of the history and current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization. Being juxtaposed with that type of material appears to me to be an ongoing attempt on the part of some editors to consistently present the group in a decidedly negative (and equally non-neutral) light. Challenging whether Jehovah's Witnesses are actually "Christians" or not in the opening paragraph of this article (as well as in the infobox) to me constitutes an inappropriate and obviously non-neutral position. Mentioning this claim somewhere in the article may be appropriate, but due weight should be applied in terms of its prominence. At the moment, I'd simply like to see a fair bit of work done on introducing some more neutrally sourced material to the body of the article, to replace the more apologetic content, but to me (as well as other editors I'm sure) the ongoing edit warring from both sides of the "debate" make that appear to be an exercise in futility. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

Firstly, I think that the use of the word "restorationist" is controversial. It links to another Wikipedia page, which defines restorationism, but that page is not properly referenced. When I looked up "restorationist" in the online dictionary, it told me that Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defined it as "One who believes in a temporary future punishment and a final restoration of all to the favor and presence of God; a Universalist," which is quite different from the meaning as it is used in this article, and certainly does not describe Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs.

The next two sentences in the paragraph are not referenced, which is surprising, considering that the metamorphosis of the Bible Students into Jehovah's Witnesses is perhaps one of the least controversial points about Jehovah's Witnesses and most likely to be independently observed (somewhere else). Keep in mind that sources that provide information ABOUT THEMSELVES are not suitable as primary sources for an article.

Finally, why define Jehovah's Witnesses as the "members"? It's the religion. It might be acceptable to include points on the grammar. For example, technically a "Jehovah's Witness" doesn't exist grammatically. A member of the religion is "one of Jehovah's Witnesses." The inclusion of the scripture from which the name is derived would then make sense.

If there are references which state other colloquial names for the religion, then these could be included too. I've found one (a third-party reference) that states that Jehovah's Witnesses call their religion "the truth." Of course, there's also J-Dubs.

Mandmelon (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The objections you raised can be met easily enough. The second definition of 'restorationism', in the OED, is "A House Church movement which seeks to restore the beliefs and practices of the early Christian church; the doctrine and principles of this movement." I think it is easy enough to see from the reference that this describes the JWs.

Things that are very easily referenced need not be, necessarily. If everyone is willing to accept them, cites are less necessary than for contentious statements.

The OED defines JW solely as the members, and not the religion; ergo, the primary use of "Jehovah's Witness" is of the members, not the religion: "a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, founded c1879 (under the name ‘International Bible Students’) by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), which rejects institutional religion and refuses to acknowledge the claims of the State when these are in conflict with the principles of the sect." Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, probably I'm going to revert your change, though incorporating the Is 43 bit; that was good. But the lead as you have it doesn't exactly actually define JW. It describes them, but not until the end do you actually say it is a religion. I fail to see why the l/c bit is in the lead. It should be in the body, but not the lead. And as I pointed out just now, JW refers the members first, religion second, if at all. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your talk here until I'd already reverted. Those references are valuable. Don't just cut references so easily. They take time to get right, and the more of them there are, the better. I don't know what the OED is, and I haven't been told in the article that it comes from an "OED" definition either. If there are discrepancies, they can both go on the page. "Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically incorrect. Singular of Jehovah's Witnesses is "a witness of Jehovah." Maybe the OED (I've found it what it is now - I just Googled it) defines it as the member not the religion for the sole reason that they have written it in the singular, even if it's not proper English. Besides, the OED is wrong. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a legal entity, and Jehovah's Witnesses are usually NOT members of the Watchtower Society.

I included a reference to millenialist which, in my experience, is the word used to describe Jehovah's Witnesses more often than "restorationist."

Also, I don't understand why you say I failed to "define" Jehovah's Witnesses by leaving the word "religion" until the end, but then you say that Jehovah's Witnesses are the people, not the religion. That's pretty much what I said. The President called the people Jehovah's Witnesses.

Perhaps more information would be better, rather than one or the other.

By the way, Charles Taze Russell is already mentioned in the Bible Students article, which is linked. There's no point repeating information.

Besides that, the OED definition of restorationism is irrelevant because Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a house church organisation.

I will be going through this article thoroughly, and I will note what you have said, but honestly, it's atrocious. Encyclopedias don't look like this.

Mandmelon (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, its no big problem, it's easy to see you're working in good faith. I have gone back to a basis of the old version, while incorporating the refs you added. You're right, it was hasty of me to not include what you had added.

You can't exactly say the OED is wrong. It's the accepted standard for the use of the English language. Perhaps if we changed the wording to 'adherent', it would be more agreeable. I think some of what you're doing is splitting hairs; they may not be a 'member' of the 'society', but using looser definitions of 'member', and recognizing that we are talking about member of the religion solves everything, unless I am mistaken.

I'm not a fan of repeating info either; but there has to be a happy medium. We could end that sentence with "Bible Student Movement", or "19th century", or "Russell". I don't think there is harm in mentioning Russell, but if you feel strongly about it, take it out.

Again, the house church mention in the OED doesn't render it irrelevant; the point is about what's being restored, not the house church clause.

And the l/c on 'Witnesses' I'll check on now in the body, and add it if I can't find it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So since you haven't made any substantive changes to the lead, is the existing version amenable? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an email to the Oxford English Dictionary because I was convinced that they had specified "member" rather than "religion" simply because "Jehovah's Witness" is singular, so it couldn't possibly refer to more than one of them. "Jehovah's Witnesses," however, means more than just more than one "Jehovah's Witness," especially since the topic of the Watchtower Society appears so early. Their reply was:
"The OED currently has an entry for Jehovah’s Witness. It is in the dictionary because it occurs as part of the English language (meaning a person, not the organization). When we come to revise the entry during the current complete revision of the text, we shall need to consider whether we should also include Jehovah’s Witnesses in the plural, as the name of the organization." So you can see that Jehovah's Witnesses would be included in the dictionary as the name of the organisation. I'm going to rewrite the first sentence as it's awkward.

Mandmelon (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses" as used for the name of the organisation is a singular proper noun, just like "Star Wars" or "Corn Flakes" function in the singular. However, "Jehovah's Witnesses" also functions separately as a plural noun when referring to more than one member of the religion, hence the prior opening sentence. The change to the opening sentences made by Mandmelon suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses are a collection of people belonging to an unnamed religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just discussing, not making any changes at present

A fair percentage of this (too-long) page seems to contain information that is or could be presented under other subjects. For example, there are already pages on Charles Taze Russell and J.F. Rutherford. It's just very tiresome reading.

I don't think referenced material should go (unless it belongs elsewhere), but unreferenced material should be chopped, not just tagged.

Mandmelon (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a bit long. Much of the information here, provided it is in the "main articles" at the section headers, may be removed.

Most users think that unreferenced material should be tagged for some time, before being deleted, unless it is spurious--if so, chop away. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But on the whole, this is a rather good article. It has many refs and is low on bs. If you really want to have fun, check out hyperdispensationalism ;) Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, A lot of the edits being done are too substantive, and POV in nature. I've found several wording choices to be questionable. Having sources for POV statements does not make something NPOV. POV sources produce POV statements. Anyway, let's work on a proposal here first if you would like to make further changes. Some of what was added was not referenced properly. I found one case where the reference did not support the statement. So, let's work out any edits here before the 3RR takes affect. What is your propose for each section. Let's go section by section to keep things clear, and do one section at a time, if that is OK. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing changes. 1. Please state which wording was POV and which reference disagreed with the statement made about it. Please note that although Wikipedia wants NPOV, that doesn't mean it wants POV deleted. I quote: 'The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".' That comes from the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View page. 2. There's no such thing as "too substantive." 3. You deleted the references. There are only two reasons I can think of why references should be deleted. Either there are too many from sources that speak about themselves (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) or they are coming from minority points of view that don't need to be represented. Even if your statement that the references were misquoted is correct, it's not the references that need to go. It's the text about them that needs to be changed. 4. Watchtower sources aren't supposed to be relied on for these pages due to Wikipedia policy about sources that speak about themselves, so the best compromise is to find examples of outsiders commenting on the situation and choose mutually acceptable language to summarise, and possibly edit (as in "cut some of", not "change"), their observations. Just because a reference source makes some POV comments doesn't mean it's not eligible to be referenced at all. 5. I don't have a purpose for each section. I'm being guided by what I can find in third-party sources. I don't mean to imply that things I've deleted are untrue or shouldn't be included. I've only deleted material because it was unreferenced. I didn't think of this course of action for myself. I wouldn't have. It was because Wikipedia:Verifiability quotes Jimmy Wales, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Mandmelon (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No original research, NPOV, verifiability - directed at JWs

"No original research" means that you can't write what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Jehovah's love, justice, wisdom and power even if you know it from years of meeting attendance, unless you can find a reference for it, and preferably a third-party reference. It wasn't referenced, and whoever put it back didn't put it back with references (they had their chance) so I've added a reference and cut everything that I couldn't find any references for. I will continue doing this for all of the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses.

Wikipedia prefers that people use secondary sources as their primary source of information. To explain, primary sources are those that are close to the origin of the story. Secondary sources are those that analyse the primary sources. If they're valid for Wikipedia's use, they'll reference the primary sources adequately so people can do the research if they're particularly interested in it. Tertiary sources are encyclopedias and textbooks etc. It seems to me that Wikipedia wants secondary sources used because then the research has ALREADY BEEN DONE. It would also appear to mean that if Watchtower Society publications are to be used as source material (and a goal could be a maximum of 49% Watchtower Society references on any given page), it's better to use information that is analytical of the subject at hand, rather than a simple statement of beliefs. For example, the link (on one of the pages) to a copy of the original court document filed by the Watchtower Society in the matter of Jimmy Swaggart is probably a primary source. A secondary source (what Wikipedia prefers) would be somebody else analysing what court documents signifies in the general scheme of things. Jehovah's Witnesses could probably comment on this, and if they have (in published form), I think this would be more acceptable than the original document. Through the secondary source, one can find the primary source (for serious researchers). One hundred references and 95 of them from Watchtower Society publications is "self-serving," which Wikipedia doesn't want.

I repeat, years of being an active Witness is not a sufficient reason to write down what you think is true about the subject. You need to find third-party sources of information. For an active Witness, this could be problematic, as could the very fact of being here in the first place. I knew when I started doing research on the internet (which led to my leaving the religion) that I shouldn't be doing it. Why don't you? I quote from an online Awake!: "This journal, as well as other material produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has repeatedly warned of this particular danger. Therefore, anyone you meet in a chat room ostensibly set up for Jehovah’s Witnesses is, at best, a person who disregards such counsel." (October 22, 2005)

As for the representation of various facets of the subject, I have a couple of suggestions for additions - conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses (a separate page), more on Jehovah's Witnesses during the Nazi period (although maybe I just haven't found it yet), and mention of Carl Olaf Jonnson's excellent book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," along with a precis of its arguments.

This encyclopedia is actually part of the world that Jehovah's Witnesses believe lies in the power of the Devil. If you have a problem with how it works, ignore it.

One final note - I believe that the requirement to rely on secondary sources has another purpose, besides helping contributors to Wikipedia to avoid the temptation to use original research. It also means that somebody else (not somebody self-published, preferably) has found that point to be important enough to comment on. Therefore, what can be found in third-party sources should be used as a guide to what is even worthy of mention in Wikipedia. That's the only way to be fair on NPOV. NPOV is not meant to exclude people who have radical points of view. It's meant to exclude people who haven't done independent reading on the subject, and generally, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't supposed to.

I hope people read this, because I've a good mind to cut entire articles out of this project on this basis, once people have been duly warned. Just put those Watchtower publications down, and make sure somebody ELSE said mentioned it too before you assume that somebody else wants to know what you could write about it.

Mandmelon (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You cannot erase things just on the basis of not given sources. If there is no source, put a tag demanding a source to be given.
2. Third party sources are fine but in the case of JWs these are very few, because the group is small.
3. Of course, when we speak about third party sources that fit to an encyclopedia, we do not mean every broken-hearted individual who hates JWs because when he was a boy his mother didn't let him go to parties, but we mostly mean academic or journalistic sources.
4. Articles on JWs are a result of a very long process and of contribution by many people, thus I would recommend you not to be hasty to make radical changes easily.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: There is loads of vetted third party source material addressing practically every aspect of the religion of the Watchtower and the people of Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently you are unfamiliar with this sea of information. A great deal of this information has been systematically edited out by zealots for reasons only they understand and the rest of us can only gasp at.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon: If your intent is academic rigor then I wish you well. I have tried and tried to wave the same banner on this and other pages. I just cannot keep up with the religious zealots.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently you are unfamiliar with this sea of information) In the past I have taken a taste of the bona fide third party/academic info you inserted to the NWT article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: It is a characterization (not to mention a strawman!) to speak of "bona fida" vetted third party source material. Any given source is either vetted third party or it is not. My remark you allude to does not make mention of a source's reputation, but neither does your remark it was in response to (hence your strawman). Nevertheless, assuming the highest standards of academic rigor, your earlier statement remains false of third party sources that "in the case of JWs these are very few." I doubt you have much if any immediate access to such information in order to hold a learned opinion one way or another. Regardless, certainly you are wrong. I know this because I do have access to such databases and have read them.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Make here a list of academic books dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, so that you may give the chance to others to have access to the vast sea of knowledge.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: It is not just books. It is all sorts of vetted academic works. Do not expect me to list all these for you, or anyone else. Go to a decent university library, and use it. Better yet, purchase access to a decent digital database you can access and search from any connected lap top on the planet. Just type in the word Jehovah and you will see how ridiculous your statement is that "in the case of JWs these are very few" third party sources of information. If you want to edit here you have a duty to do your own research for information. The number of vetted sources speaking to the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the religion of the Watchtower organization is enormous. That you go on otherwise is embarrassing to read. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, I'm sorry to hear that.

Vassilis78, I'll address your points one by one.

"#You cannot erase things just on the basis of not given sources. If there is no source, put a tag demanding a source to be given."

My reasoning was in line with this quote from Wikipedia: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information."

However, I've since found a quote from Wikipedia that says: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle... Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time."

I've put tags in now anyway. I haven't looked yet to see if they're still there.

"#Third party sources are fine but in the case of JWs these are very few, because the group is small."

Penton could be used in its entirety, as could Franz, Holden and Gruss. I'm surprised to see that Jonsson hardly rates a mention. I haven't found much about Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, although the subject has received much attention by outsiders. I know that Holden says that not much academic attention has been focussed on Jehovah's Witnesses, although I don't think he surmises that it's because the group is small.

Mandmelon:

When author Andrew Holden spoke of a dearth of academic literature on Jehovah’s Witnesses he was not suggesting, as Vassilis78 claims, that there was in his opinion “very few” third party academic works addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses or aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Holden was 1) speaking from a sociological perspective, and he was 2) speaking of extensive treatments of the subject, and 3) he spoke of a dearth in relation to what is available on other groups. Certainly Holden was not suggesting there was little in the way of third party sources of information about Jehovah’s Witnesses because he was not talking of this in general, and as an experienced author and educator he was undoubtedly aware of all the vetted sources speaking to Jehovah’s Witnesses or aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses. To verify this readers need look no further than the note pages in Holden’s book Jehovah's Witnesses portrait of a contemporary religious movement where he references a wide array of third party sources addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses or aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"#Of course, when we speak about third party sources that fit to an encyclopedia, we do not mean every broken-hearted individual who hates JWs because when he was a boy his mother didn't let him go to parties, but we mostly mean academic or journalistic sources."

See above. An author commenting on the number of people who have published complaints about the restrictiveness of the lifestyle does constitute an academic analysis.

"#Articles on JWs are a result of a very long process and of contribution by many people, thus I would recommend you not to be hasty to make radical changes easily."

I'm going to go through tonight and address my thoughts for each section separately.

Mandmelon (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Penton, Franz, Gruss and Jonsson are not third party sources because they were JWs and they talk a lot about their personal experiences. For a non-Witness, their testimony could be put to the same level with the testimony of any JW.

Since you deny any official Watchtower publication as a third party source, only academic and journalistic monographs, essays or articles by people who had never been JWs could be really considered as third party sources. Please show me a list with such works (anti-sectarian libels, of course, are not taken into account at all).--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just looking through this on Wikipedia. I'm new here, but I did read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, and Wikipedia:No Original Research before I started contributing. Now I find (see my "Apology" below) that it is not necessary to know the rules of Wikipedia before you contribute. So this is the result of my latest research: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals... The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in Google Scholar or other citation indexes."

So I've started with Franz and I'm looking it up on Google Scholar.

Results - Franz Cited by Stark and Iannaccone in Journal of Contemporary Religion (1997) Cited by Holden (2002) Cited by Spencer in Christian Bioethics (2002) Cited by Muramoto in Journal of Medical Ethics (2000) Cited by Gruss (2003) Cited by Singelenberg in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1992) Cited by Crompton (1996)

On the other hand, Wikipedia also prefers secondary sources over primary sources. I found this definition of a primary source - "The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies... The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."

Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to use the articles/books listed above, instead of Franz's book, because it is an autobiography/memoirs.

Penton - Apocalypse Delayed Wikipedia says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."

Apocalypse Delayed was published by University of Toronto Press.

Google Scholar gives citations by: -Stark and Iannaccone in Journal of Contemporary Religion (1997) -Partridge - The Re-enchantment of the West (2006) -Dain - Madness and the stigma of sin in American Christianity, Stigma and mental illness (1992) -Boyer - The Growth of Fundamentalist Apocalyptic in the United States, The Continuum History of Apocalypticism (2003) -Henderson (BA, Drake University. MA, PhD, University of Washington) in Journal of Church and State (2004) -Rostron (Associate Professor of Law at University of Missouri) in Quinnipiac Law Review (2004) -Dawson in Nova Religio (University of California Press)(1999) -Côté, Richardson (Political Science, Laval University, Quebec; Sociology and Judicial Studies, University of Nevada) Disciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah's Witnesses. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion (2002) -Kirsch (Department for Social Anthropology, University Halle-Wittenberg) in American Ethnologist (2008) -Hitchcock - The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples." Published by Princeton University Press (2004) -Tucker - Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement (2004) -Holden (2002) -Walls - The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Published by Oxford University Press US (2007) -Wilson - The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. Published by Oxford University Press (1992)

In regard to your claim that having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the past would preclude an author's writings on the subject from being a reliable source, I have submitted the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

That's all I'm writing for now.

Mandmelon (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research on Google Scholar on "Insight on the Scriptures." I have found these citations.

• Kozlovic - Marburg Journal of Religion, 2001 (Marburg Journal of Religion is a web-based journal on a university website). Reference is that Jehovah's Witnesses consider it "an insult to wear anything on one’s head while in God’s house."
  
• Kozlovic - Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 2004 (Journal hosted by The University of Saskatchewan). References are that Caiaphas was "a "ringleader in the plot to do away with Jesus" and a "chief persecutor of infant Christianity."
  
• Chianu - Journal of African Law, 1992 (for SOAS of University of London). Reference is that the oldest recorded land transaction took place in 1881BCE.

That's not much, and two of those references are not about "work in the relevant field" that the Watchtower Society has done. They were merely references to stated belief.

I've just been looking back through archives of the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. I did that last night too, but I found more this morning. There was a discussion in February about books citing R Franz's list of alleged NWT translators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Here are my thoughts. I am actually quite interested in knowing the extent to which this subject and others have entered academic discourse, rather than just being commented on by those who would defend mainstream Christianity against "cults."

Rhodes (2002) published by Zondervan - POV is expressed in title and book blurb, "If you're concerned for the temporal and eternal welfare of others, The Challenge of the Cults is a must." Full title is: "The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response." Citations in other university press-published books also seem to be missing.

Martin, W (1997) - published by Bethany House - extensively cited by other sources including university press-published books. However, the focus of the book is again clearly to support proselytism to Martin's belief system. Thirtieth anniversary edition quotes author as saying that cults are “the great mission field on the Church’s doorstep.” Research contributors described as having "years of experience understanding, explaining, and defending the Christian faith."

Piper, Spencer and Marlowe (undated) are published online by the Reachout Trust, Spiritwatch and Bible Research. I don't think they are reliable.

Penton (1999) is reliable. It's university press-published and has been cited by at least four other university press-published books or articles. See last post. The template in regard to use of third party sources rather than primary sources reads: "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It doesn't say, "formerly affiliated."

Mandmelon (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NOT HAPPY

I know, I know, my tittle is lame. But it is so true. I'm getting very annoyed with people posting stuff about JW's (Of which I am associated with), that are plain lies. 'We hate ourselves', 'We kill ourselves for not taking blood' and the like. So please verify your content, and don't give YOUR idea on the matter, GIVE THE TRUTH!!!

Well thats my rant > feedback plz Westsideplayer (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I truly felt that I was acting in harmony with Wikipedia policies when I deleted unreferenced material.

For example, I saw this quote on the Wikipedia pages: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information."

I thought that people should have been aware of this policy before they contributed or reverted my changes, so I deleted unreferenced information aggressively.

However, I have since found these quotes:

"You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia... You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating."

"Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle... Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time."

So I'm sorry.

Mandmelon (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of introductory comments

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a restorationist,[1][2]Christian denomination of the same name. The religion emerged from the Bible Student Movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses", based on Isaiah 43:10, refers to their belief that prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel would be fulfilled in Jehovah's Witnesses.[3] On July 26, 1931, the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was adopted by resolution at a convention in Columbus, OH, to separate themselves from the churches of Christendom.[4]"

- Consider "taken from" Isaiah 43:10 instead of "based on."

- Source [3] also mentions that J.F. Rutherford gave up his beliefs about the literal restoration of Palestine in 1932. Somebody's added a quote to the reference at the bottom of the page to say as much, unless I did that. I don't think it was me because I don't think any quotes should be in the references at the bottom of the page. It makes things more difficult for the reader and looks argumentative. I was going to suggest insertion of the point being made about Rutherford's change of heart into the section about J.F. Rutherford (which should be moved almost in its entirety to the "J.F. Rutherford" page, as should the section about C.T.Russell and Knorr.) I'm more than happy to qualify this comment as Malachy's analysis.

- I don't know why I referenced Malachy as appearing in Penton. I found it in Gruss (in Penton in Gruss, actually). The reference will have to change.

- I'm Australian and OH doesn't necessarily ring any bells for me. Just kidding. I'm for "Ohio" spelled out in full, though.

- I suggest that a third-party reference be found instead of [4]. The more Watchtower references zealous people put in (I mean that in the nicest possibly way), the less Watchtower references other people get to use. I think it would be best to adopt a prudent attitude towards Watchtower references and use them frugally as if a valuable commodity. If somebody else has published the same information (and what they've said is correct), use theirs. That just means more Watchtower references, where they really are deemed indispensable, can be added without getting the balance too far out of whack.

- Christendom hasn't been defined. I don't have access to the Proclaimers book so if whoever does could provide a quote, so that the text can be rephrased without misquoting the book, that would be great. Besides that, I don't understand the purpose of the statement. An academic analysis would comment on why it was of interest to Jehovah's Witnesses at that time to remain separate.

Mandmelon (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the 'taken from' and Ohio changes, I don't see why anyone would argue with them. Also, I re-added 'millenialist', as I have a reference for it.

It isn't that odd on WP pages to have the footnotes serve as footnotes as well as references; I think it makes WP more like an academic work, and that is a good thing. It might make things harder for the reader, but at the same time, it treats them like a grown up and assumes that they will take the time to read footnotes. I have no idea why you think it's argumentative. But yes, keep moving detail from this article into more specific ones until we lose that tag at the top of the page when we edit it.

Changing the refs are up to you, or at least not me. I don't have them, so I'm little help here. I don't have a problem with using Watchtower references, at least when they aren't contentious. This doesn't seem contentious, but it wouldn't do any harm if you found a different reference. But again, it's not entirely necessary.

I don't think saying Christendom is a problem, though we do need to parallel the source as closely as possible. I think the purpose of the statement is to show their rejection of mainstream Christianity, and I don't see a compelling reason not to include it. The academic analysis would be good, but not in the lead of this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the quotes in the footnote references. I was forgetting that books do the same. "Rejection of mainstream Christianity" makes more sense than the Christendom statement, however I challenge the reference source for this quote and therefore the assertion being made. Does the Proclaimers book directly quote Rutherford? Penton's analysis, based on a reference I can't locate in the book, has Rutherford seeking use the new name to differentiate his followers from "the many independent Bible Students." Those who held reservations because it seemed to be a sectarian initiative were the ones that Rutherford was intending to draw out in the matter of their loyalty to the organisation. (Penton p.62)

Google Scholar results for citations of "Proclaimers of God's Kingdom"
Cited by Bergman (2002) The Influence of Religion on President Eisenhower's Upbringing Journal of American & Comparative Cultures. Published by the American Culture Assocation.
Cited by Bergman (2001) Why President Eisenhower Hid His Jehovah's Witness Upbringing JW Research Journal, which appears to be a website only. It is "Research and opinions on Jehovah's Witnesses."

Mandmelon (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference about JW's trying to match their beliefs with 1st century questions. It was primary sourced with a heavy POV and it didn't even support the statement anyway (unless one is of the POV that restorationist are really a continuation of 1st xtian churches). — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of introductory comments in History section

"Jehovah's Witnesses originated with the religious movement known as Bible Students, which was founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell.

Russell was brought up in a Presbyterian family, but had difficulties in accepting Protestant Christian doctrine, particularly predestination and eternal punishment. Having sought refuge in an Adventist group, he eventually formed his own group of Bible Students, who met together to study scripture. As interest grew, Russell's audience widened, and he gained a reputation of being an arresting speaker, who expounded the meaning of scripture.[5]

In July 1879, Russell began publishing his own magazine, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, now known as The Watchtower.[6] In 1881 he formed the legal entity which developed into the non-profit organization: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, currently headquartered in New York City.[7] In 1884, it was incorporated, with Russell as president.

A number of points are worth noting about Russell's leadership. He claimed no special revelation or vision to authenticate any of his teachings. He is not viewed as divine; he is certainly not a prophet or a saviour figure, and he claimed no special authority on his own behalf. Indeed, the fact that the later Jehovah's Witness movement never formulated a creed, affirming that the Bible itself was the sole source of true teaching, indicates the lack of special status accorded to Russell. Russell offered no unique message of his own, and his status was merely that of a Bible student, like his followers: Russell's teachings were no more than those that any conscientious student of the Bible would have arrived at by faithful study of scripture. He is not regarded as infallible, and although present-day Jehovah's Witnesses continue to use and respect his writings, they are even willing to concede that on certain matters he was mistaken. [8]"

- Consider deleting first line as it's already been stated.

- Source [5] can be found on the internet at http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/chryssides.htm. I'm still getting the hang of the cite command. Maybe I'll figure it out soon.

- More about source [5] - it's been quoted from directly but no quote marks have been used. Consider paraphrasing instead of adding quote marks.

- More about source [5] - although the Proclaimers book is listed in the Bibliography of this paper, there are no inline citations. This makes it difficult to ascertain on what Chryssides has based his comment that present-day Jehovah's Witnesses "are even willing to concede that on certain matters [C.T. Russell] was mistaken."

- Good source though.

Mandmelon (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The intro paragraph of the article is simply that. The history section should offer context for its discussion. That said, it may be a good idea to make it seem less repetitive to each other. Some sort of rewording or blending in with the first whole paragraph?

I agree with your statements regarding source 5.

On the quote of source 8 (now?), the quote is far too long. Also, I find the concession comment in particular to be POV in nature. There is got to be a much more neutral way of making that statement. I am almost tempted to remove the quote itself for that alone. Who is to say who is mistaken about what in the bible, right? The fact is that some of their beliefs are now different that those held by Russell, and that's pretty much how it should be stated for NPOV. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting comments in the History section that are mentioned on other pages. Anything that's referenced, I'm moving to a page that suits it. Don't worry. It hasn't gone anyway completely.

Mandmelon (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of J.F. Rutherford

Consider moving to J.F. Rutherford page and summarising on this page as follows:

Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1869–1942)

On January 6, 1917, Joseph Franklin Rutherford (also known as "Judge" Rutherford) was elected second President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society with no other nominations put forward. [10]

During his term as president, the controversial 1917 book, "Finished Mystery," prompted the United States federal government to indict Rutherford and the new board of directors for violation of the Espionage Act. Eventually, they were exonerated, after having served ... months(?) of their 20 year prison term.

Under Rutherford, membership grew from about 21,000 in 1917 to about 115,000 at the time of his death in 1942.

Rutherford's comments on various matters are the subject of [Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses|controversy] among critics of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Mandmelon (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Nathan Knorr

Consider moving to page on Knorr and summarising on this page as follows:

Nathan Homer Knorr succeeded Rutherford as president of the Watch Tower Society. Knorr founded the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead to train missionaries, as well as the Theocratic Ministry School to train preaching and teaching at the congregational level. [How did Nathan Knorr assist with success in court cases?]

During Knorr's term as president, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was translated and published by the Watchtower Society. The Aid to Bible Understanding was also published. (Mention how this tied in with the fracas of the 1980 disfellowshippings elsewhere) Membership rose from 115,000 to over 2 million under Knorr's presidency.

Create new sections to summarise each of the next presidents.

Mandmelon (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the simplification of this section and moving the detailed info to a new article. Your general wording choices work for me. I do not agree with adding summaries for each of the other presidents in this article (perhaps in its own article?). In this article, notiability of many of the presidents might be hard to establish. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of section about Jesus

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus (also "Jesus Christ" or "Christ") is the only-begotten Son of Jehovah, Jehovah and Jesus are separate beings, and that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's impersonal, active force.[44] By dying on a torture stake, Jesus served as a ransom sacrifice to pay for each person's sins. For this, Jesus is regarded as the only means by which to approach Jehovah in prayer, and the means of salvation.[45] Also, Jesus is regarded as head of the Christian Congregation. They also believe that Jesus was the archangel Michael before being born into the flesh, and as such, is a created being similar to the other angels."

It would appear that the author/s of the above would like the following points addressed: - familial identity - method of death - salvation value - use of name in prayer - other titles/roles (which?)

I would suggest that this section needs to be written in terms of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than in terms of Jesus. Items supporting the scriptural understanding of Jesus' identity/importance etc. can be placed in the article on Jesus. "Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Trinitarian" sums up half the first sentence.

Suggestions - They do not worship Jesus because they believe he was created by God.... they always use Jesus' name in prayer, but never pray to him (that's a big difference between JWs and others) ... since [], they have referred to the instrument of Jesus' death as a "stake" or "torture stake," but have not used any replicas or images of the cross or the stake in worship since [] ... they celebrate the anniversary of Jesus' Last Supper annually ... Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas or Easter. (subject = non-worship of Jesus, perhaps it should come later)

Jehovah's Witnesses are unique (don't know; just a suggestion for further research) in identifying Michael the archangel as Jesus ... although they believe in the virgin birth, they do not believe that the Nativity scene occurred as traditionally depicted... they interpret the New World Translation of the Bible's rendering of 1 Peter 3:18 ("made alive in the spirit") to mean that Jesus' body was never resurrected ... followers of C.T. Russell expected the invisible return of Jesus in 1874 ... their current belief is that Jesus began his parousia (in English, "presence") in 1914 in heaven, but they are still waiting for his "second coming" (subject = history of Jesus, as per JWs)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus performed the miracles the Bible says he did, but that miracles were only of use to Jesus' purpose in those times.[Holden, A. (2002) Jehovah's Witnesses: portrait of a contemporary movement. Routledge.]... they see their refusal to accept blood transfusions as one necessary way of remaining worthy to be saved by Jesus' blood [How Can Blood Save Your Life?] (subject = Jesus' power to save)

Mandmelon (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree in part. Your suggestion presumes that those who worship Jesus is the correct (or obvious) point of view. What about those who don't even know what a Jesus is? We should simply state what they believe and not go into a comparison of their beliefs to others, in this section. Comparing beliefs in the context of an article section that is about their beliefs is presenting a POV; JW's are not trinitarian, but they are also not a pod of killer whales either. One does not define something by what it is not, but by what it is. Discussion of anti-trinitarism may be better suited under contraversies. The current statement are accurate and to the point. To make it have more secular wording, let's reword in common terms (without the comparisons to others). — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean.

Mandmelon (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved comment

you say that you don't use biased oppinions to place any arguments in these articles and yet you are doing just that.If you want unbiased truths then you should present any article that talks about what the jehovahs witnesses believe and how their doctrines are set up with the orginization and ask them if there is any truths to the facts presented and if there is any doubt that something can be challenged then it shouldn't be presented. [1]

Comment by User:Kevin henson, moved here by Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon's authoritative views and edits called into question

No doubt it’s become quite evident that user Mandmelon has hastily deleted months of work from countless Wiki users. I question his interpretation of Wiki policy based on several statements he has made, and if in error I encourage others to revert the changes.

The following quotes are directly from the official Wikipedia research policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

1. “Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.”

For some reason Mandmelon keeps pushing Tertiary (3rd party) sources above all and deleting various secondary sources, yet according to Wiki’s own policy, secondary sources are the goal.

2. “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care...”

Clearly Wiki has provisions for the limited use of primary sources where secondary sources are not adequate.

3. “Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources… is encouraged.”

This includes original charts and graphs that can be sourced. For example, an original table that sorts the Presidents of the US by political party, or an original chart on the historical prices of Gold is encouraged even if that particular chart exists nowhere else (as long as the source data exists and is reliable). This is not providing new information and conclusions, but rather is a collection of existing secondary data, and this sort of research is encouraged by Wikipedia. The idea of any encyclopedia is to sort and make sense of existing data as best as possible, charts and graphs are a great tool for this. Unfortunately Mandmelon has taken it upon himself to delete various original collections and organizations of sourced data, justifying it by his incorrectly relating Wiki policy.

I've only had time to look over a few of his edits... I'm sure others have complaints considering the huge volume of his recent edits. Please give your feedback. [[comment added by Jadon (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon has put a lot of time in the article, and has been zealous. He has put many many bytes into this talk page, so it is hard to consider that we all have such big problems with his edits as do you. When someone has discussed his edits as much as Mandmelon has, any accusation of haste is unfounded and incredible. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Carl... but you didn't address any of the three points I was making. I don’t want to get into semantics, I simply added the word "haste" because he has deleted and changed a vast amount of data over a very short period. That's a side point, the real issue is what he writes on these discussion pages as a justification. He does it in an authoritative tone citing wiki standards and policy (so people who’ve worked hard for that information just back down) but he's going overboard and his interpretations of Wiki policy are off. (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Mandmelon is a "she."

2. Jadon's definitions of "tertiary sources" and "third party sources" need revision. I think this is the crux of it. The definition of a tertiary source is NOT the same as a third party source. "Tertiary source" is a term relative to primary sources and secondary sources. As I see it, "primary source" could mean, in different contexts, more than one thing. It could mean the main source of the article, a source that's close to the origin of the story being discussed (autobiography, religious scripture, maps, court cases), or (incorrectly) a self-published source. Tertiary source is relative to the second meaning given of "primary source." Examples of tertiary sources are bibliographies, library catalogs, directories, reading lists and survey articles because they are "a selection, distillation, summary or compilation" of primary and secondary sources. Encyclopedias and textbooks could be considered secondary or tertiary. As you can see, tertiary sources are not the same as third-party sources, which are ones independent of and not affiliated with the subject matter of the article. The list of "third-party sources" is going to change from article to article, whereas a tertiary source is a tertiary source no matter which article it's in. Third-party sources could be primary, secondary or tertiary, but would primarily be useful if they're secondary. On the other hand, Watchtower Society publications are self-published. This doesn't automatically mean that fit into only one category - primary, secondary or tertiary. The Index of Watchtower Society publications would obviously be a tertiary, self-published source. Most of the rest would be secondary, self-published sources. The New World Translation itself would be a primary, self-published source.

In regards to the charts and graphs,
(a) they've been repeated through the Wikipedia articles; just put a link from other spots to the place where they fit best,
(b) the one I'm thinking of (Eschatology) is anti-Witness anyway, so I don't know why Jadon cares.

The eschatology chart shows progressive development of their eschatological views. In what way is it "anti-Witness"?

Please rely on secondary, third-party sources, rather than:
- primary, third-party sources (autobiographies, court cases),
- secondary, self-published sources (Watchtower Society publications)
- tertiary, third-party sources (bibliographies) - not that anybody's doing that, including me.

As for the "authoritative," I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses for twenty years, I'm reading constantly about it, and I'm familiar with the academic process. Encyclopedia articles are useful for the BEGINNING of a new assignment. You go there to brainstorm for ideas about the topic. There is lots more that could be included on these pages (and they used to look radically different so there's nothing sacred about the current look). Therefore, what is there needs to be edited for conciseness to fit more in.

In response to "contribs", it's really difficult to see how people have worked hard for the information when their references aren't cited.

Mandmelon (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah section trimmed far too much

It appears that the Jehovah subsection has been trimmed far to lean. The whole point of JW faith is to worship this deity, yet the article says one somewhat POV sentence about their beliefs regarding Jehovah. I question this greatly. BTW, I say it is somewhat POV because it presumes an understanding of the Christian deity as God as being the obvious point of view. Almost 4 billion people on this planet would dispute that POV. We don't need to define "God" in this article, but we should not presume an understanding of such. In the context of their beliefs, we should describe what JW's believe regarding their diety and describe them using the name of that diety openly. We should do this without questioning whether or not Jehovah is the correct name of the Jewish or Christian deity, as this should already be questioned in the wiki article that is specifically about Jehovah. As far as wording suggestions, we can go back to a previous state for this section and refine it. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that section. That's not to say that it's complete. The previous text was unreferenced. I'm going to dispute that it's POV, unless the original source is too. (The original text in Holden says: "The Witnesses always use the name Jehovah from the Hebrew translation Yahweh when referring to God. They regard this as a scriptural requisite.") I don't think it assumes anything about God, except the way that JWs REFER to him/Him (in fact, gender isn't even mentioned in the article or reference). A link to the article about God, assuming there is one, might help. Alternatively, this sub-heading could be called "Theology."

Mandmelon (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, the section from Jan/Feb 2008 (before a lot of the edits started) was sourced to primary sources. Also, yes, the current source may be a little too POV as well. It does assume an understanding of the xtian deity, or at least the JW deity (as you pointed out). In either case, there needs to be a bit more about their deity. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention list

Note: As of 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC) this is now a centralized multi-proposal either-or discussion: Merge List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions into Jehovah's Witnesses, merge it into History of Jehovah's Witnesses, keep, or delete. Deletion can only happen through WP:AfD, but if the consensus from this discussion is delete, AfD should just be a formality. Additional suggested targets for mergers are welcome, be sure to direct the discussion here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

There is a list of conventions at List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions. That article is of poor quality and there is concern that the topic doesn't stand alone. It was up for deletion through WP:PROD. I rescued it but it's content really should be merged into another article, perhaps this one or an article dedicated to the history or governance of the Jehovas Witness church. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All it is is a list of events; I'm not sure that it belongs anywhere (little to no context, seems trivial/nn to me), but if it does, it should be in a history article, not this one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is NO reason to include these Convention titles in the JW page. It gives no party any information of use other then Jehovah's Witnesses have conventions each year.--JCL3CLL (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and leave the list article as is (though it does need to site sources) - I recently dealt with a list, and learned something. List on wikipedia.org do not have the same requirements as articles about persons/places/things. They may simply exist for their own sake. (I'm exaggerating, but not much.) However, notibility is not required. For this, I both disagree with that article's deletion and with it's merger with this article. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for list articles is found at Wikipedia:Lists. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 05:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that lists are exempt from meeting the same standards as regular articles is simply not true. From WP:LISTS#Listed items:

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Many articles consisting of lists have been deleted at Articles for Deletion because the information was not considered encyclopedic. As the person who prodded this article, I'll probably list it at AFD if this discussion doesn't result in the list being merged somewhere else or improved to stand it on its own. Propaniac (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merging with this article, and disagree with deletion. Placing the long list within another article would make the appearance of that article awkward and unwieldy. Also, the most relevant current location for linking to the convention list would be from the Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article under Meetings, where there should be a section for Assemblies and Conventions, which should link to the list article. (I thought there used to be a separate article for Meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses, and if there was, that would be the most appropriate place to link from.) As for the policy of verifiability, the policy is intended to ensure the correctness of content, especially if it is likely to be challenged. No one has disputed whether the conventions actually happened, or their names. If someone really wants to trawl through Watchtower literature to place a vague reference next to every single item in the list, good luck to them, but not doing so does not necessarily make the list inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Beliefs and Practices. I found another article on History that I think is an even better fit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists have this criteria: Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view. (Yes, I know this is not a limit to the guidelines). The only open questions are verifiability and original research, which can be answered with sources when provided. Notibility itself is not addressed by the WP:List article at all. Until notability is addressed in the List article (as in, how it is to be applied to lists, I do not see it as a valuable measure when discussing List AfD or mergers. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with the Watchtower Library CD could go about adding references to the list of conventions. It would be a tedious exercise with not a lot of benefit, as the information in the list has not been disputed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in doubt about this issue. I don't think that it should be merged with the main article. I would like to ask if the article is needed, and what it should be like if it is. Summer Song (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blood section

I have removed the sub-sections from the Blood section. This level of detail belongs in the article specifically about JWs and blood transfusions, not the general JW article.

Also, the quote from Isaac Newton was used as 'weasel words': "Isaac Newton agrees with us, therefore it's right."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)