Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

POV at the introduction

Medical ethicists have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses as an authoritarian group for coercing members to reject blood transfusions.[20][21][19] Studies of the religion have claimed it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[20] with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing any who oppose its doctrines.[21][22]

Is it logical an article about a religious group to begin like that???

Imagine:

Prologue for Catholicism: "Academics criticize it because of the Holy Inquisition and its involvement in thousands of wars".

Prologue for Orthodox: "Academics criticize them because of the vast use of idolatry and mysticism".

Prologue for Protestants: "Academics criticize their clergy because they supported racial discriminations and colonization".

Prologue for Ancient Greeks: "They are widely known for pederasty".

Does any of this articles have such introductions? Why, when it is for Jehovah's Witnesses, should the prologue say whatever negative possible to prepare mentaly the reader to hate them?

SHOW ME ONE PROLOGUE OF A MAJOR RELIGION THAT HAS NEGATIVE STATEMENTS!

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misuse the talk page by inserting inappropriate font sizes. The inclusion of the sentences on unquestioning obedience is appropriate because Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion that attracts controversy. A simple Google search will demonstrate this. Their system of disfellowshipping, the application of which is quite unusual among Christian religions, is one of the most controversial points about them. It is therefore appopriate (and logical, if you like, since you used that word) to include a brief summary in the introduction of the article of the aspects of the religion that attract controversy. The Wikipedia guideline on article introductions states that the lead section "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies.". The article on Scientology refers in the introduction to controversy, but ultimately the presence or otherwise of controversy in the intro to other religions is irrelevant. You have tagged the page for a breach of neutrality, but the article is overwhelmingly neutral. The bulk of the article discusses the history, beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. All information is presented fairly, accurately and with balance. The issues of controversy are well sourced from reliable textbooks. There is no undue weight given to the negative aspects of the religion. It may be that, as a Jehovah's Witness, you simply don't like to see a criticism of your religion in the article. LTSally (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not with criticism, but with the focused and unparalleled criticism on JWs and to your constant effort to realize your empathy in Wikipedia.

I repeat. All major religions have controversial aspects, and with much more serious disputes than those of JWs. In none of their prologues in WP criticism is employed. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants didn't only shun people as we do, BUT THEY KILLED PEOPLE for reasons of faith. Do you grasp the difference?

You say: Their system of disfellowshipping, the application of which is quite unusual among Christian religions, is one of the most controversial points about them. This is your own conclusion, but I don't care about it. It is not your personal experiences or the personal expiriences of your friends and your Google search that determine that. Shunning is legal and for the law uncontroversial. The great disputes have to do with MILITARY SERVICE and BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS to the children. These are the cases of the courts world-wide.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the points I raised. Your opening comments suggest your issue is more with me than the content of the article. I'm still waiting for you to explain where the article fails to maintain neutrality. If you can't explain this, I'll remove the tag. LTSally (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "for the law uncontroversial" is not the benchmark for determining whether any notable controversy exists. However, for a controversial issue to notable for the lead, it would generally be a current controversial issue, which is the distinction between the cited JW controversies and those you cite for other religions above. I'm not convinced that there has been "unparalleled criticism of JWs", though such is a specific JW teaching and therefore a typical reaction by members when faced with any opposition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the introduction but it could/should be cleaned up. 1) it now appears as if 'all' Medical ethicists teach they are an authoritarian group which coercing members to reject blood transfusions. This is not the case. see: [1] and [2] and [3] 2) "unquestioning obedience" could be debated since their publications make it clear they can believe as they wish as long as they do not 'Promote' something that is against what is in print. eg. "Of course, these people certainly had the freedom to believe what they chose. But anyone who publicly or privately advocates views that are divergent from what appears in the publications of an organization, and who does so while claiming to represent that organization, causes division." JW Proclimers p.629 3) The statement that "expulsion and shunning face(s) any who oppose its doctrines" once again is not true, even if quoted. At length we have been though this before. It should say, "any who "prompt" other doctrines." see: archive #22 under "Disfellowshipping for belief" So anyway, it does need to be cleaned up to be NPOV but it appears that the fact that it is a controversial religion can appear. Johanneum (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis78 has something of a point when he argues that articles about other religions do not mention anything critical in their lead sections. However, some criticism is acceptable in the lead section as long as it is NPOV. I think the bit about "medical ethicists" is too negative. It would be more straightforward to say "JWs are known for their teaching about blood which includes a controversial prohibition against blood transfusions." Such an approach simply states that the "teaching about blood" is considered notable primarily because it prohibits blood transfusions. I also object to the bit about "medical ethicists" because it cants the sentence against JWs because "medical ethicists" presumably are experts on ethics and know what they're talking about. The sentence also asserts that JWs are authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a subjective phrase. Some say the JWs are authoritarians, the JWs see compliance as voluntary. We should not presume to judge who is right. "Studies of the religion have claimed that it demands unquestioning obedience..." This seems to be a bit extreme. How many studies have drawn this conclusion? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. I would not even support "Some studies of the religion have claimed..." What I would support is "JWs are known for their methods of congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly oppose its doctrines." Leave it for the reader to judge whether this is authoritarian and demanding of unquestioning obedience. JWs will argue that people are free to leave and those who stay are simply advised to avoid those who are no longer members of the flock. Once again, we should not sit in judgment but should objectively report the facts. --Richard (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Advised to avoid"? I'll correct you on that point, Richard. Witnesses are certainly "free to leave". Someone who chooses to resign from the religion may simply withdraw, but will remain forever subject to the organization's judicial system and may be formally expelled and shunned by family members and friends if they one day breach a JW edict (attend a different church, perhaps, or celebrate a birthday or Christmas). A Witness who chooses to resign, thus indicating they are no longer subject to the religion's judicial system, generally does so in writing. An announcement is then made to the congregation they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This, as spelled out in WT literature (Watchtower, July 1, 1984, September 15, 1981), is a coded message to all members, including close family, that they are henceforth to shun that individual, not even saying "hello" to them. Any Witness who disregards that edict is himself subject to punishment, including expulsion and shunning. Many Witnesses may insist that everyone is "free to leave", but departure carries a heavy price. It's not for nothing that researchers use the words "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". LTSally (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) The reference to the claim by medical ethicists is quite clear. It by no means implies all medical ethicists "teach" anything. (2) The reference to studies claiming the religion requires unquestioning obedience is well supported by reliable sources, This is, again, a notable fact about Jehovah's Witnesses that distinguishes them from most other Christian denominations. The quote you provide from the Proclaimers book does not support your contention that Witnesses are free to believe anything they want as long as they do not promote it in print. It is a hollow and cynical claim that a person can hold a personal view if it is clear they must not voice it if it diverges from the official doctrine. What freedom is that? (3) The statement that Witnesses who oppose the religion's doctrines are liable to be expelled and shunned is also well supported by reliable sources. Your claim that this is not true despite the presence of those sources, is your personal opinion. There are many documented examples of Witnesses being expelled and shunned for precisely that. I wonder what you seriously believe would take place if a Witness repeatedly gave answers in a Watchtower study, or included suggestions in a public talk or student talk, or freely speculated with friends that, say, the 144,000 of revelation is a symbolic figure only and not literal, or that all Christians go to heaven when they die, or that the Governing Body is not being used by God as his sole channel of communication, or that Jesus did not return in 1914, or that the requirement to go witnessing regularly and report it monthly is the product of a pharisaic religious attitude, and not actually a commandment of the Bible for the last days ... would their viewpoint be tolerated? The article is balanced, accurate and well supported by reliable sources. It reflects no point of view. LTSally (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording about medical ethicists was previously even worse, and I flagged the wording as an inappropriate appeal to authority on 10 January 09 but no one discussed. I prefer the new wording over the weaselish statement about medical ethicists. Regarding the comments about shunning, I agree with LTSally's response about the 'freedom in silence' (mentioning divergent beliefs privately to elders and not accepting 'readjusment' is sufficient for 'judicial' action regardless of whether such views are 'promoted'). However, I agree with Richard's comments regarding presentation of shunning in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard you could show a suggested change. What you say would again still allow the bear facts without the negative twist that it presently has based on some outspoken critics. 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sally, Sorry I was in a hurry. Perhaps I need to be a little clearer. First what Richard has suggested has the controversial information with out the negative twist, thus it is a NPOV. I venture to say that most medical ethicists feel they need to treat the whole person including respect for their personal beliefs. Thus while not endorsing abstinence from blood they do view it as a "rational" decision based on their personal religious convictions. Dr. Osamu Muramoto is/was an outspoken person promoting the "coercion" view which has been debated by others. As far as the disfellowhipping, my point was that a JW can believe differently than what appears in print from the WT society, with out any problem. The issue is advocating, promoting, teaching, then and only then, does it become judicial! I encourage you to read my old comments from the archives mentioned above. Johanneum (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Work!!!! Johanneum (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal from the lead section of the information regarding claims that the religion demands unquestioning obedience from members, and the threat of expulsion and shunning facing any who oppose its doctrines, does nothing to address perceptions of bias and deserves no congratulation. That sentence contained a fact, not a point of view as has been claimed. Its removal and replacement with the statement that they "are also known for their methods of enforcing congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly violate their strictures and refuse to recant" is simply an attempt to delete material that many Witnesses would find unpalatable, and therefore aimed at not removing bias, but removing a claim they dislike. It is couched in terms thoroughly supportive of Witness methods. No, they are not known for this, they have been criticised for it. And there is no bias in stating that.

Richardshusr referred to the use of the word authoritarian as "subjective" and asks who is to judge whether this is correct. He says the reference to the religion demanding unquestioning obedience is "a bit extreme" and asks, "How many studies have drawn this conclusion?" Wikipedia articles properly rely on reliable sources such as academics and authors of books published by reputable publishers to present its information. You may be interested, then to note that Andrew Holden's Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement refers to the movement's "totalitarian" structure (p.32), an "autocratic" administration (p.22) and "authoritarian" principles (p. 173). H. and G. Botting's The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses refer to "tyrannical application of justice" (p.78), an administration that requires "absolute obedience" (p.92), a demand for "absolute conforimity and obedience" (p.95), the Governing Body's "totalitarian" exercise of power (p.157) and the organization's "dictatorial" nature (p.180). James Penton's Apocalypse Delayed refers to "totalitarianism" (p. 124, 245), "police-state controls" (p.250), authoritarianism (p.295, 300), "iron-fisted discipline" (p.296), "tight control" of members (p.306), coercion (p.306) and the "domination" of members by the Governing Body (p.318). James Beverley's Crisis of Allegiance refers to the "unrelenting emphasis on obedience to the organization" (p.100). Raymond Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom discusses how the organization "seeks to silence any difference in viewpoint" (p.110). Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die compares the organization to "totalitarian states, in particular China" because it "directly controls the life of every Jehovah's Witness" (p.68). Penton, the Bottings and Franz make repeated reference to the swift and severe punishment meted out to those who question or dissent from the official teachings. These are not offhand, rare or incidental comments, but observations contained within serious studies of the religion by reputable authors. You may still regard these claims as subjective, but given the number of reputable authors making them, they gain the validity to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic profile of the religion and, as per WP:LS, in the lead section.

Though Richardshusr and Vassilis would like to remove "negative" comments, they are presumably quite happy to allow "positive" observations about the religion to remain in the article. Is this bias? WP:NPOV demands the expression of both sides, positive and negative, in order to achieve balance and neutrality. This article doesn't exist to advertise Jehovah's Witnesses, but to contain facts about them for members of the public wanting to learn more. I am going to restore the information about the claims re unquestioning obedience and of authoritarianism, because they are fair, well sourced, and belong in the intro as a brief summary of some of the points of controversy contained within the article. LTSally (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They are also known for their methods of enforcing congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly violate their strictures and refuse to recant.[22][23]

This sentence should be totally removed from the prologue. For every topic we can find critics, believe me. But this issue has never been publicly controversial so that it may deserve such a prominent position in the prologue. There is enough space in the "criticism" section and also, not to forget, in the main article about controversies on JWs.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sally says: Wikipedia articles properly rely on reliable sources such as academics and authors of books published by reputable publishers to present its information

How does this really apply to the Raymond's Franz books? Really, who runs Commentary Press?--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Witnesses' shunning policy is one of the paramount criticisms of the group. See [4]. The fact that their is no way to gracefully exit the sect is one of the reasons they are so widely criticized. --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this web-page proves that "the Witnesses' shunning policy is one of the paramount criticisms of the group"?--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the wrong link. See [5]. --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No way to "gracefully exit"? Members are free to gracefully exit simply by not attending meetings or professing to be a Jehovah's Witness for a short while. There is no discipline, no "shunning". It is only when members continue to attend meetings, associate with the congregation, profess to be Witnesses, while continually carrying on wrongdoing (such as immorality, alcoholism, etc) that there is any cause for action. 70.70.148.83 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true. My parents are in this situation. But you see, on the contrary apostates always want to make a "loud" exit...--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from speculative pejorative JW generalisations on Wikipedia Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread has gone off-topic. It would perhaps be better to create a section for each example of supposed NPOV rather than a blanket accusation. I have one! See next section:

Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Intro POV - "demands unquestioning obedience"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro POV - "demands unquestioning obedience"

Like others, apparently, I've been surprised at instances of what has passed for scholarship in this article. I've been disappointed at the occurrence of what seems nonneutral POV in a frequency greater than could be expected to occur coincidentally.

For example, the introduction (!) contains this statement:

Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[22]

That statement doesn't seem accurate to those familiar with the religion. JWs don't demand that members do anything 'unquestioningly', or 'without question'. Still, the statement uses the weasel word protector, 'studies say'... Let's look at that.

The statement says "studies" as though there are multiple "studies", yet there are not multiple "studies" cited, or even two. The only so-called "study" given for the reference is:

Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 10. ISBN 0415266092.

For now, let's proceed on the assumption that Holden is objective... Does the citation from Holden's work actually say what the Wikipedia editor repeatedly pretends it says? No. The citation says,

"When people convert to the Watch Tower organisation, they defer unquestioningly to the authority of those who are appointed to enforce its doctrines."

A sidebar seems necessary to note that Holden's own words seem poorly chosen; "Watch Tower Christianity" or even "Watch Tower theology" would have been more accurate than "Watch Tower organization" in this sentence. The matter of "converting" refers to a mental process which requires the resolution of questions. JWs are hardly unique in recognizing the steps between interest and Christian baptism: understanding, faith, repentance, conversion, dedication, baptism. The baptizand should have "converted" his way of thinking well before he dedicated himself and even longer before he requested baptism; in three sessions with three elders, a JW baptizand must have given evidence of having performed this process. It's difficult to imagine it could occur without any questions.

Using the dichotomous senses of 'subjective' and 'objective', the citation is explicit only regarding a new adherent's subjective mindset just before baptism, not the religion's objective ongoing "demands".
The citation doesn't say that deference is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that unquestioning deference is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that unquestioning obedience is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that any obedience is demanded.

The citation doesn't say Jehovah's Witnesses "demands unquestioning obedience from members".
Why would an editor pretend the citation said that?

Such unscholarly and/or dishonest misrepresentations say much about those who foist them consciously or subconsciously. Especially in an encyclopedic context, readers have an expectation that research should be free from agenda-driven misrepresentations. I'd be pleased to see this analyzed 'bad example' removed from the article altogether. How may unquoted references have yet to be honestly evaluated?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LTSally has indicated clearly and specifically above that there were in fact several studies regarding this point. Those additional studies can be used as refs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When we make a prologue, we don't just put something we find in a study, or two. Can you imagine how many details we can find to each study? Have you ever found an encyclopedia having this point in the prologue? This is not something that belongs to the prologue. The encyclopedias I have found until now always refer, at the prologue, to the door-to-door preaching, the refusal of military servive and some of them to blood transfusions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

More tedious word-by-word analysis of a simple sentence in order to claim poor scholarship and dishonesty. Wikipedia nowhere requires the parroting of its sources, so there is no requirement for me to locate the exact formula of words, “Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members”, in any of the source material. Yet the phrase certainly reflects, accurately, the claims by multiple authors of studies on Jehovah’s Witnesses, so it is fair and accurate.

But to your challenges.

1. Is Holden objective? He is a sociologist, a researcher in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Lancaster, UK. He claims no background in Witnesses. The book, as he explains, was produced after some years of fieldwork, associating with Witnesses, attending meetings and studying their literature. The book is described as the first major ethnographic study of the religion. It’s amusing that, moments before raising the issue of Holden’s ‘’objectivity’’, you make the comment that “That statement doesn't seem accurate to those familiar with the religion. JWs don't demand that members do anything 'unquestioningly', or 'without question'.” This is an entirely subjective opinion, offered by a Jehovah’s Witness in defence of his own religion. On the basis of that personal opinion, you wish to remove a statement backed by multiple scholarly sources.

2. The sentence does say “studies of the religion have claimed” … because I need to identify the origin of the claim. The wording previously said “former adherents have claimed”, which was wrong. “Studies show” may indeed be a weasel word, but what are the options? State it as a fact? List the studies in the sentence? The phrase is acceptable, I think, if the studies are identified immediately as a footnote.

3. The list of sources, and their observations about authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent or questioning, I have already produced above should be enough to demonstrate that the claim is well supported. There is no requirement to list every source of claims, but I can certainly add some more to support the claim. Holden at p.22 says: “Devotees are expected to adhere to all doctrines established by the Governing Body … There has been no mechanism for contributing to or criticising the canon of official teachings. The establishment of doctrines has been very carefully restricted to, and controlled by, the Society’s Governing Body … an autocratic administration.” P. 33: “When people join the Watch Tower Society, they must adhere to its teachings, which means subjecting themselves the theocratic rule of God himself and to judicial committees that claim the right to function as a literal government.” James Penton, a retired professor of history and religious studies at University of Lethbridge, Alberta, refers (p.107) to the Society demonstrating a “zeal to suppress almost any questioning among the Witness faithful”. p. 124: “Watch Tower leaders seem determined to reinforce their authority at almost any cost. They insist on obedience to all of the various and sundry laws which they establish …” P. 245: “The governing body demands almost absolute obedience from Jehovah’s Witnesses. ordinary Witnesses and even senior Watch Tower officials must not disagree with the society’s policies or doctrines openly.” P. 249: “…The judicial committees of Jehovah’s Witnesses act in a manner similar to the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries when opposition to its decrees resulted in one’s being tried for heresy or apostasy.” Heather and Gary Botting, (she an anthropologist, he a professor of English) refer (p.92) to the Watch Tower Society emphasizing the importance of fighting against “independent thinking” in order to “ensure absolute obedience”. P. 153: “Jehovah’s Witnesses will brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or application of social pressure have discovered to their chargrin. Individualism is not tolerated, especially where criticism of the power structures of the society itself is concerned. Obedience is the key to the successful retention of power by the Governing Body …” Alan Rogerson writes in his study of Witnesses and their history (p. 178) that “…the newly converted Witness must conform immediately to the doctrines of the Watchtower Society, thus whatever individuality of mind he possessed before conversion is liable to eradicated if he stays in the movement …”

Really, how many more of such references do you need? Am I making "dishonest misrepresentations"? Am I pretending these sources are saying anything they are not? Is this, as you claim, "nonneutral POV"? The claims are so uniform and so remarkable about a religion that exerts such power over its members, threatening with shunning if they question them, that they deserve a brief mention in the article's lead section as a brief reference to the many controversies that surround the Witnesses. When the lockdown on this article is removed I can add some of these references to support the claim, and expand, in a sentence or two, the statement further down the article under Criticism and Controversy. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you simply copy the existing text from the article, modify it and then propose your revised text here? The purpose of the page protection is to discourage edit-warring and promote collaborative discussion, compromise and consensus building on the Talk Page. If your strategy is to simply wait out the protection period, there is a significant chance that the edit war will simply resume after the page protection. The next step after that is to block the edit warriors. I probably won't do it myself since I'm an involved party but I will go find an uninvolved admin to do the honors if it comes to that. Please work with the other editors to find a compromise that all can live with. Edit-warring is not in the interest of writing an encyclopedia, no matter how right you may think you are. --Richard (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MSN Encarta does not portray the Jehovah's Witnesses in the way that LTSally insists on doing. Here's what the Encarta articles says on the topic: " Jehovah’s Witnesses stress Bible study and absolute obedience to biblical precepts." I don't think you would find much objection to that formulation. It makes sense to mention congregational discipline in the lead but perhaps in a less derogatory way. The more negative comments can be brought out in the main body of the article. --Richard (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the current lead is "derogatory". It includes well-sourced criticism of JW. How is that considered derogatory? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "derogatory" because it is criticism. There's no problem in presenting criticism as long as it is presented as such. The real problem is that it is being presented as fact rather than as opinion. We must present fact as fact and opinion as opinion.

What follows was written before Carl's comment but hit an edit conflict and so appears afterwards.

Sorry... until Jeffro77 pointed them out I missed the edit in which LTSally provided more sources. I think the question is not whether the assessment of JWs portrayed in the sources can be inserted in the article (they obviously can be, given the number of sources provided) but how this assessment should be characterized. Is it an objective, indisputable fact that "JWs are authoritarian, etc."? Well, is there an objective test to determine the "authoritarian" nature of a religion? Can you quantify and measure the extent to which a religion is authoritative? No. So, the assessment is a subjective one. Now, LTSally has a point that, if most scholars who are deemed to be relatively objective deem something to be true, then we should consider that it might be true. The problem from an NPOV perspective, is how do we determine if the scholars who are cited represent a truly objective perspective. Perhaps these are just the ones who are critical of JWs who make this assessment. How do we know that LTSally hasn't cherry-picked his sources? Sorry for the aspersion, this isn't meant to be a personal attack but just a rhetorical device so please don't take offense. The problem with "Studies show..." is that it suggests that there are no studies that show the opposite. Also, such wording is usually associated with facts that are more or less incontrovertible such as "Studies show that smoking causes cancer." If there is any doubt about the facts being asserted then "Some studies show..." or "Some studies suggest..." are better locutions to use. Moreover, the phrse "Studies" suggests that the studies are objective and represent the mainstream opinion. LTSally is asserting that this is the mainstream opinion of everyone outside the JW-fold. Given the number of sources cited, perhaps he's right. Nonetheless, it would defuse some of the edit warring if we used terminology such as "Critics emphasize the authoritarian nature of the Watchtower Society's methods of congregational discipline." This suggests that there is a JW-POV and a Critics-POV and leaves it for the reader to decide which POV to credit.

--Richard (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that an academic such as Holden would be pleased with seeing himself described as a critic. He has made an observation as part of an ethnographic study of the religion. Nor have authors such as Rogerson and Penton created works that can be accurately or fairly described as anti-JW. I am trying to collect as many books as I can that present a study of the religion and its history. It seems to me that I am the only editor on this article presenting such sources. I have presented the observations those authors have made. If anyone finds studies of the religion as detailed as those I've presented -- and Watchtower-sponsored "histories" such as Marley Cole and AH MacMillan don't count, nor does the Watch Tower's Proclaimers book, containing a version of history many of those authors have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable -- then let them add them here to gain the "balance" you seek. But I repeat, a sentence or two of criticism in the intro to the article does not produce bias. As to an amended sentence that accommodates everyone's outlook ... I'll ponder it and return. LTSally (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Botting, Penton and R. Franz cannot be considered truly neutral sources. Botting's study has been characterized as "pejorative" by other academics, and as for Penton and R. Franz they are well known for their vendetta against JWs. Especially Penton's book on Nazi regime has attracted much criticism by peer-reviewers, and some historians have publicly mentioned that they don't even take it into account.

But again, I am calling your attention to the fact that you cannot add to the prologue a criticism found in two or three studies. As far as I have checked, and soon I will present my findings, encyclopedias mention three things distinguishable about JWs: door-to-door ministry, refusal of military service and state worship and, some of them, blood transfusions. Some refer to the topic of shunning with few words at the very end of the article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to start the sentence with

One common criticism of JWs is their use of congregational discipline to enforce conformity in doctrine and obedience. One author has characterized their congregational discipline as "authoritarian"." We could then follow this up with a sentence that says "JW apologists respond that ...." This allows both sides of the story to be presented.

--Richard (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, in an encyclopedia we don't put something in the prologue just because someone said it. I am asking you this: can we find in scholarly books thousands of criticisms against Catholicism ? Shall we put them to the prologue? If two or three studies say something good or bad, is this enough for this information to be put to the prologue? Would you do that?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would. Perhaps it's time to do just such a thing. I'll raise the issue over on Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Come over and see what the response is. --Richard (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd propose a modification: "One common criticism of JWs is their use of congregational discipline to enforce the obedience of members and ensure conformity in doctrine. Authors of several studies of the religion have characterized governance of members as "authoritarian" (footnote for Holden, p. 173, Penton, p.295) and "totalitarian". (footnote Holden p.32, Rogerson, p.50) Watch Tower literature rejects suggestions the organization practises sectarian regimentation (Awake!, May 8. 1984, page 10) and says subjection of members to the organization results in the peaceful security of theocratic order and harmony within the ranks of members (Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, p. 161-162)." I propose such statements from Watch Tower publications in the event that no books by Witness apologists can be cited that touch on this issue. LTSally (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread has moved along quite nicely; I'm proud of everyone!

This part now moved to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Source: Holden.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden's book has a lot of oversimplifications and mistakes. I will devote him a good review in amazon. To give you an example of stupidities:

1. The role attributed to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics (p. 32). !!!!

2. The Witnesses God is the God of the Old Testament, and they reject the Trinity doctrine [as if it were the God of New Testament] (p. 24) (!!!)

And my favorite, in order to have a taste of what "authoritarian" means for Mr. Holden:

3. Two major texts published by the Society for Witness children are Your youth: Getting the Best Out of It [...] and Questions Young People Ask: Answers that Work [...]. The books are presented in readable but authoritarian style [...] One issue of which great deal is made is that of respect to adults, with particular emphasis on the honouring one's father and mother (p. 126). (!!!)

So, Mr. Holder compares the Pope with the President of WT Society, he believes that JWs worship specifically the God of the Old Testament, and that the Young Peolpe Ask book, that promotes respect to the parents, is authoritarian. Oh yes, this is not a typo mistake, Young People Ask book is authoritarian.

Maybe Mr. Holden believes that Pope was instructing crusaders using this specific book before invading to Constantinople... or maybe Pope Pius and Hitler used to read together similar material...

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear LTSally you said: "If anyone finds studies of the religion as detailed as those I've presented -- and Watchtower-sponsored "histories" such as Marley Cole and AH MacMillan don't count, nor does the Watch Tower's Proclaimers book, containing a version of history many of those authors have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable -- then let them add them here to gain the "balance" you seek."

• If, according to your point of view, the official Proclaimers publication is written by authors that "have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable" (sic!) then what about "the great church historian"/"father of church history" of the orthodox written history Eusebius of Caesarea? According to your point of view, we should stop referencing to his History as long as he is described as a notoriously biased historian. (For the one interested to read more on the subject, I would propose H. W. Attridge & G. Hata, Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, 1992, Wayne State University Press.) Please, be more careful and precise to your evaluations. -- pvasiliadis  21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Source: Holden

I just popped in to add a quote from the ostensibly objective Holden. Readers may have noticed he's quoted in the Criticism section of another JW article, complete with a delighted exclamation mark:

"It could be that many Witnesses have not yet been in the organisation long enough to realise that 'new lights' have a habit of growing dimmer, while old ones are switched back on!"

That seems intended by Holden to tickle some group of readers, and that group isn't serious students of sociology. One of these days I'll get around to reading Holden's book; I wonder if this is the only example of question-raising asides by the author.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden's book has a lot of oversimplifications and mistakes. I will devote him a good review in amazon. To give you an example of stupidities:

1. The role attibuted to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics (p. 32). !!!!

2. The Witnesses God is the God of the Old Testament, and they reject the Trinity doctrine [as if it were the God of New Testament] (p. 24) (!!!)

And my favorite, in order to have a taste of what "authoritarian" means for Mr. Holden:

3. Two major texts published by the Society for Witness children are Your youth: Getting the Best Out of It [...] and Questions Young People Ask: Answers that Work [...]. The books are presented in readable but authoritarian style [...] One issue of which great deal is made is that of respect to adults, with particular emphasis on the honouring one's father and mother (p. 126). (!!!)

So, Mr. Holder compares the Pope with the President of WT Society, he believes that JWs worship specifically the God of the Old Testament, and that the Young Peolpe Ask book, that promotes respect to the parents, is authoritarian. Oh yes, this is not a typo mistake, Young People Ask book is authoritarian.

Maybe Mr. Holden believes that Pope was instructing crusaders using this specific book before invading to Constantinople... or maybe Pope Pius and Hitler used to read together similar material...

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this thread (above this point) was copied from a previous thread Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Intro_POV_-_.22demands_unquestioning_obedience.22.
I hadn't realized my one line quote from Holden might prompt more, but it now seems clear there will be enough to create a Holden thread. I'll delete most of what I wrote about Holden in the earlier thread, and I'd encourage Vassilis78 to do that too, to keep the threads tight and useful.
Please keep the criticisms and defenses academic rather than personal! Readers should be allowed to decide for themselves if a source is "stupid" or not.
And please keep in mind that there are more pressing matters that must be resolved in the next few days before the article will be reopened for editing.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to lead by example.

Holden: 'WT President like RC Pope'

I don't have the book in question, but I found a scanned page of page 32 mentioned above by Vassilis78. I was shocked not because the pope is mentioned as an example of infallibility, but because the research behind Holden's analogy is so remarkably sloppy! In 2002, Holden writes,

"The role attributed to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics."

No, it doesn't.

Anyone who has objectively studied Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Watch Tower would know that by 2002 the presidency of Watch Tower has precisely zero theological or organizational significance. Since 2000, no member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has been an executive or director of any corporate entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Whatever his biases are or are not, a good researcher would at least know the facts of what he discusses; Holden's analogy should have referred to their GOVERNING BODY rather than the Watch Tower PRESIDENCY.

I am now very interested to see what else Holden's work will reveal about his scholarship and leanings.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The numerous mistakes Holden makes on the history of JWs prove that he hasn't made serius study on them. For instance:

1.[Russell] undoubtedly [was] influenced by the Seventh-Day Adventists (p. 18) (!!!)

2. The Witnesses make use of two corporations—namely the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association (p. 29) !!!

If Holden hasn't study JWs literature thoroughly to have more accurate conclusions, what was the basis of his study and of his frame of thinking? There is an answer:

Loyalty, emotional dependence and a strong sense of community have enabled the movement to survive. Former Witness David Reed (1989a) also suggests that the main reason for the Society’s success is that it is able to impart a certain mystique about the authority of the presidency. (p. 32)

Oh yes, David Reed's speculations and sugestions became a reliable source for a sociological study... If I became an apostate, that automaticaly would make me a reliable source too, and my personal speculations will deserve space in sociological works.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden: ''Watch Tower and Watchtower ONE corporation'

Please, Vassilis78, if you can, post the exact quote from Holden's page 29 regarding the hitherto unknown "Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of Pennsylvania and New York". I think readers will forgive the typo of Track for Tract, but it's far more serious if Holden spends a whole book presenting himself as an authority on Jehovah's Witnesses without his realizing that Watch Tower PA is a separate corporation from Watchtower NY!

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the passage:

The Witnesses make use of two corporations – namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association. The Pennsylvanian Corporation has voting members who live in all parts of the world. They meet annually and elect or re-elect seven directors of the corporation, who themselves elect officers. The President of the corporation is therefore, elected not by popular vote but by the directors, who choose one of their members for the post. The International Bible Students Association is a London Corporation. It owns property in Britain and is responsible predominantly for British affairs.

Here he makes two serious mistakes. First, he has ignorance of the fact that JWs run scores of corporations world-wide. The second mistake, that you already said, is that he considers the two corporations of PA and NY as one.

The other mistake above about SDAs is also very serious. Holden's failure to distinguish SDAs from Second Adventists proves that he has vast ignorance of the history of JWs.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden: 'Russell influenced by Seventh-day Adventists' (rather than Second Adventists)

The matter of JW and Adventism has actually been discussed right on this page at Adventist?. It would be useful if someone can post exactly what Holden's page 18 says about Russell and Seventh-day Adventists. Just how poorly researched is it?

Even casual students of the First, Second, and Third Great Awakenings know the difference between Second Adventists (such as Advent Christian Church) and Seventh-day Adventists. Of course, JWs have always acknowledged being influenced by Second Adventism and specific Advent Christian individuals. For example, Russell himself wrote of an 1870 visit to a basement hall “to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists, the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell".

So Russell was certainly influenced by Second Adventists, which is obviously an entirely different religion from Seventh-day Adventists. But, to be fair, "influence" is hard to disprove. Perhaps Holden correctly states the facts correctly regarding Second Adventists and then Holden's work makes an additional point about some previously undocumented connection between Russell and SDA. Are we sure Holden is so poorly informed that he really has misstated the facts and religions? Does Holden say any more about SDA or Seventh-day Adventism?

It would be a serious mistake for a purportedly scholarly work to refer to a Second Adventist as a Seventh-day Adventist. Pretty basic stuff, knowing that the two religions are different.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just pause for a moment. I'll wipe the foam from the edge of your mouth. Ah, that's better. Now, please carry on. LTSally (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that intended as Holdenesque hilarity?

Or it is a serious accusation; implying that only a rabidly insane person could question Holden?

Does Holden demand unquestioningness from his readers?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A certain level of hysteria is creeping in. What next: a public book burning, with the authors added to the pyre as well? LTSally (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• A "public book burning" is not needed of course for any book whatever the opinions it holds. But it is made clear for sure which books are not to be used to an article according to the scientifical criteria and Holden's seems to be one of them.
• I think that LTSally's saying ' just pause for a moment, I'll wipe the foam from the edge of your mouth ' is a flaming and ad hominem one and I would propose she'd better withdraw it in order that we focus on the information and not start blowing off the whole discussion. -- pvasiliadis  08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone 'above my pay grade' to decide what to do about particular personal attacks. Of course, it's disappointing when an ostensibly civil editor brands as 'mouth foaming' and 'book burning' the straightforward presentation of an increasingly persuasive body of evidence showing that Holden's work is a striking example of grossly inept scholarship. If no one cares to stop it and if that editor plans to continue that behavior, please create a thread for that purpose. Returning to the topic of this thread and a NEW example of Holden's poor scholarly, Holden actually asserts...

Holden: Russell's basement renewal was with Seventh-Day Adventists (rather than Second Adventists)!

I still haven't seen more than two or three page scans of this "reference", but just that should make anyone question how Holden's book could be accepted as an authority. I cannot believe anyone relies on it! In the thread above, Holden is quoted as saying Russell was influenced by SDA, even though no one else (to my knowledge) has ever made such an assertion. As odd as Holden's assertion was, I conceded that "influenced" is a fuzzy word and difficult to disprove.

By contrast, it's easy to prove that Holden's research is as sloppy as one could imagine. C.T.Russell's well-known epiphany (or personal milestone) in that Adventist basement church is central to Russell's theological growth. And, the details are quite certain because Russell himself stated so plainly what happened:

“Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists, the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell . . . [Wendell's sermon] was sufficient, under God, to re-establish my wavering faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to show that the records of the apostles and prophets are indissolubly linked. What I heard sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before, and I shall ever thank the Lord for that leading; for though Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the Truth.”

So the truth of what happened seems pretty irrefutable.

Holden manages to distort what is arguably the linchpin of Russell's spiritual life. On page 18, Holden writes:

"At this point, Russell became an avowed sceptic and discarded the Bible altogether; but in 1870 he attended a meeting held by some Seventh-Day Adventists in a basement near his store in Allegheny. ...Undoubtedly influenced by Seventh-Day Adventists, Russell espoused doctrines such as the annihilation of the wicked, the denial of hell, the extinction of the soul at death and a new code for salvation."

They weren't SDA, they were Advent Christians! Perhaps the truth of what had actually happened was inconvenient to Holden's conclusions. Perhaps Holden was desperate for some link to prove his invented connection between JWs and SDA. Perhaps Holden was simply a sloppy researcher.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem there are only two choices: Holden's work is disgracefully dishonest, or Holden's research is disgracefully sloppy. Either should cause the work to be summarily rejected.

To summarize, I've seen literally two or three scanned pages from Holden's work. Just those two or three pages show Holden to be wrong about:

• The WT presidency is like the papacy. Even if you agree with Holden's gist, it would be the Governing Body of JWs that might be compared to the papacy. Since 2000, the WT president isn't even a GBJW member.
• Russell was influenced by Seventh-Day Adventists. No one else thinks so, except Holden who offers no evidence.
• Watch Tower Pennsylvania corporation is identical with Watchtower New York corporation. The two are separate, even incorporated in separate states.
• Russell deeply affected at a basement church of Seventh-Day Adventists. Russell himself said they were Second Adventists, an entirely separate religion.
  
  

Additionally, Holden's POV seems somewhat less than purely sociological when he comments:

• "It could be that many Witnesses have not yet been in the organisation long enough to realise that 'new lights' have a habit of growing dimmer, while old ones are switched back on!" [delighted exclamation mark retained from original]
  
• "[JW publications such as] Questions Young People Ask: Answers that Work...are presented in readable but authoritarian style... One issue of which great deal is made is that of respect to adults, with particular emphasis on the honouring one's father and mother". Holden equates respect and honor with authoritarianism?
  

I'm not sure how many more examples are needed for Holden's work to be recognized as too questionable to be useful. Frankly, I'd guess if I actually saw more than two or three pages, I could fill a book with Holden's poor research and nonneutrality.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are providing much more information about your own biases than his. What you are presenting are your own opinions of his studies, opinions that have no bearing on the worth of his book as a source or on what should and shouldn't be included in the article. They are simply POV - if you can povide criticism of his studies made by other sociologists in peerreviewed journals then that would be admissible evidence. But you cannot change the fact that Holden 2001 is the most reliable source as per WP:RS which is the only criteria because it is published by a well known shcolar in the field by a respectable academic press - and that is the fact that will determine how wikipedia views Holden 2001 as a source. As for your alleged examples of POV - any pov that you may find in those quotes will be what you read into them, and as I stated it is irrelevant since Holden is by all means a reliable source AND entitled to present a viewpoint that is based on scholarly investigations. I REITERATE: please work towards the improvement of the article by collaborating and discussing HOW best to use the sources at hand! Exclaiming personal opinions about sources or editors does not contribute to this. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you seriously saying that only a sociologist is qualified to point out the factual incorrectness of Holden's account of a well-known point of history and the differences between two different religions and between two different corporations?

Excuse me, but it seems rather odd to dismiss as irrelevant the multiple factual mistakes in Holden's work. Factual mistakes demonstrate either willful dishonesty or poor research. What kind of person would want those kinds of errors hidden? It seems remarkably odd to argue that my interest in demonstrable facts is a POV issue on my part!

My only comment upon Holden's "study" (rather than upon his "research" and "fact-checking") is surprise at his interpreting 'respect for adults' as 'authoritarianism'. Admittedly, my surprise regarding that one point is a "personal opinion", but an informed one appropriate to Talk.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because your personal research (WP:OR) is not enough to make an otherwise reliable source unreliable. We can discuss WHAT we will use Holden for, but not WHETHER we will use it. His book has been ravourably reviewed by a number of specialists in the field and untill your opinion is published in a peerreviewed journal their opinions of his work take precedence. Your attempts to discredit him by pointing outflaws does not change the status of his book as a reliable source - the question is a reliable source for which claims?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Maunusƛ, your ideas about "personal research", and apparently about "original research", are wrong. If I note that 'Holden says X and ten references say Y', that is not irrelevant "original research".

As long as no one pretends that Holden is an authority on BSM history or JW history or WT history or their corporate/branch structure, then it may be that Holden's work is of value to sociologists. Is this article about sociology? Do the Wikipedia articles of other denominations explore the sociology of the denomination's adherents? Perhaps that stuff belongs in an article named Jehovah's Witnesses sociology.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking sources. If a source is being used to state something they aren't really an authority on, raise those specific issues. However, even an incorrect statement by a source does not invalidate everything that source says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Attack"?

Holden's work has already been cited by some here as an authority on Jehovah's Witnesses, so it continues to be appropriate to detail why Holden is unqualified as an authority on even basic facts related to Jehovah's Witnesses. If sociologists can dismiss that analysis and excuse such a researcher, they must realize their chummy permissiveness affects layman perception of their entire "science", and helps explain why Holden apparently felt no real need for accurate research.

Oh, and when the work of a self-appointed "expert" is pointedly contradicted by facts and analysis, no one should try and hush up such an "attack" even if it does expose him as either dishonest or poorly researched.

Exposing Holden is 'shooting fish in a barrel'. He talked somewhere about his childhood impressions from his mother's anti-JW intolerance, so it's patently silly for his buddies to pretend he wrote his book in a pristine scholarly vacuum. I'd try and find the exact quote, but the sociologists and certain others would excuse it anyway. --AuthorityTam (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that to "expose" Holden for whatever academic crimes you believe he has committed. The reference to his mother is found on page 3 and is a dicussion of his intial interest in JW's — childhood memories of their periodic visits to the family home and persistence in returning, despite his mother's impatience and clear statements that they were Catholic. This prompted the questions, "Why did they persist in returning?" "What did they want to say to us?" and "Why were my parents so dismissive of their message without even hearing it?" His interest was further piqued by deep discussions with Witnesses he met at a fitness club, and he says, "I decided to let the Witnesses tell their story." Hence the many quoted interviews with Witnesses in his book. You are clearly biased against him with only snatches of information about him at your disposal. You have obviously formed this view without having read the book. There's the evidence you seek, Authority Tam, but you'll probably "excuse it anyway". LTSally (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Source: Penton

While Penton's latest book may have been financially rewarding ($79. at Amazon), it diminished his stature among academics. Uncharacteristically, other academics have criticized the book and author by name. In Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich, Penton's Chapter 1 is entitled "The Watch Tower Society's Attempted Compromise with Hitler"!

One doesn't whether to laugh or vomit at such heavyhandedness. I'll see if I can get it from the library, as I'm certainly not going to channel money to the writer.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Detlef Garbe has said about Penton that His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion. That assumptions he make, do not find support and that from a historiographic viewpoint Penton's writing perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity. See: Preface for English edition of Between Resistance and Martyrdom By Detlef Garbe, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Dagmar G. Grimm [6] Johanneum (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Truly neutral academic writers are Holocaust historians Christine King, John Conway and Detlef Garbe. Religious scientist and religious scholar Dr. Gabrielle Yonan. Penton is not included in the list of Neutral Academics. Sad to say when these historians do not agree with Penton he calls them Watchtower apologists or naive. For example, read the article: Provocation or Persecution? The "Bibelforscher" in the Third Reich (An Examination of the Conflict between Jehovah's Witnesses and the Nazis) by George D. CHRYSSIDES (University of Wolverhampton, England U.K.) [7] [8]

Rather than raising ad hominem arguments against Penton, please raise any issues of specific references to Penton's work demonstrating bias in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack might be that 'So-and-so is a no-good bum and so I don't like his book'. It's not ad hominem to point out an example of how Penton's work has 'gone off the deep end' and refer to four scholars by name who agree. If someone writes three or four books on a subject, and the fourth book seems to bend over backward to make its subject look bad, it seems pretty clear a reader would be justified in questioning the earlier two or three books on the same subject. Frankly, it's just as well to get on record here just which Wikipedia editors embrace such a writer without question unquestioningly. --AuthorityTam (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't indicated anything in the article that references Penton at all, let alone anything that presents his bias. Rather than trying to characterize Penton, please present what you don't like of his that is present in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, your provision of an example of ad hominem abusive does not negate the fact that your comments are ad hominem circumstantial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I typically roll my eyes and move on at such a retort. Typically.

An ad hominem circumstantial comment might be (and I am not asserting this): "Penton is a disfellowshipped former JW and so his book is no good."

It is certainly not ad hominem circumstantial to comment "Academics have criticized Penton's latest book for its questionable approach regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, so Penton's overall credibility regarding Jehovah's Witnesses is diminished."

Since Talk should focus on improving the article, I'll conclude by urging that future edits should keep Penton's diminished credibility in mind when considering whether to use him as a reference for a particular disputed point.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You have indicated that some sources say Penton is biased, but haven't indicated anything in the article that complies with such a view. With regard to whether anything Penton says is credible, that is ad hominem circumstantial. What, if anything, of Penton's in the article are you actually claiming is not credible?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If a response by me would benefit this thread, I would submit one.--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Page has been protected due to edit-warring

The edit war has gone on long enough. I have protected the page from edits other than by admins.

It's time that we hashed this out here on the Talk Page instead of arguing it via reverts and edit summaries.

--Richard (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're making good progress on the sentence about the JWs being "authoritarian" in their congregational discipline. AuthorityTam speculates that the protection period is about a week. He's right. However, I'm willing to lift the protection if there is a general agreement not to edit war (usually this requires a consensus agreement to what the wording of the text should be). Resumption of edit-warring will lead to either reprotection of the page or blocking.

In the meantime, I like the approach of picking a single topic which is alleged to fail NPOV and discussing it. Once we can come up with a compromise wording that has the support of a consensus, we can move on to the next topic.

Non-controversial text can be added by means of the {{editprotected}} template.

As an involved editor, it's a little dicey for me to be using my admin powers to protect the page. I deliberately protected a version of the page that I did not agree with in an attempt to avoid charges of conflict of interest. However, if anyone wants to argue conflict of interest, I'm willing to get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation and make a decision.

--Richard (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You call this a brief history of JWs?

From 40 years of Russell's history we learn that:

1. Watch Tower supporters gathered as autonomous congregations to study the Bible and Russell's writings. Russell firmly rejected as "wholly unnecessary" the concept of a formal organization for his followers, and declared that his group had no record of its members' names, no creeds, and no sectarian name.[30]

Nothing else happened then... yes, sure...

For Rutherford's period we learn that:

1. Rutherford's argument was specious because the three officers, Rutherford among them, had not been legally elected either.[35]
2. He then announced the release of The Finished Mystery as the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures; the book was widely advertised to the public as "a posthumous publication ... of Charles Taze Russell", but was actually written by two other Bible Students under the direction of Joseph Rutherford.[36][37] Controversy erupted over Rutherford's actions, and many Bible Students left to form various splinter groups.[38]
3. Rutherford continued to tighten and centralize organizational control of the Bible Students...
4. Significant changes in doctrine were made under Rutherford's leadership, including the 1918 announcement that Jewish patriarchs (such as Abraham and Isaac) would be resurrected in 1925, marking the beginning of Christ's thousand-year reign.[47][48] The failed expectations for 1925, coupled with other doctrinal changes, resulted in a dramatic reduction in attendance at their yearly Memorial, from 90,434 in 1925[49] to 17,380 in 1928.[50][51]
5. By 1933, the timing of the beginning of Christ's presence (Greek: parousía), his enthronement as king, and the start of the "last days", were each moved to 1914.[47][52][53][54][55]

What a selective editor!

From 1942 till now these things happened:

1. Nathan Knorr ... began a campaign of real estate acquisition in Brooklyn to expand the organisation's world headquarters. Frederick #William Franz, became the religion's leading theologian,[66] and helped shape the further development of explicit rules of conduct among members, with a greater emphasis on disfellowshipping as a disciplinary measure.[67]
2. From 1966 ... Focus on 1975 was intensified with talks given at conventions;[72] in 1974 a Watch Tower Society newsletter commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining.[73] The number of baptisms increased significantly, from about 59,000 in 1966 to more than 297,000 in 1974, but membership declined after expectations for the year were proved wrong.[74][75][76][77] In 1980, the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975.[78]

Aha!

The lesson on JWs is clear and loud. In 120 years of history we have an ongoing increase of strict rulership on the flock, ongoing changes of doctrine, ongoing false predictions, ongoing increase of real estate for the Watch Tower officers and decrease for its members...

Yes, yes, very nice epitome of JWs history.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can be as sarcastic as you like, Vassilis. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, and you have always been welcome to add to the history, although bear in mind it is a summary of a larger spinout article. What's there are the major milestones, all backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. You ignore the positive statements about Witnesses I wrote in, including extraordinarily large attendance at conventions and their legal actions to win the right (for themselves and others) to proselytize. LTSally (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have the time to work with all the articles at the same time. One by one. For someone who knows the history the above is a caricature of a specific agenda.

To give you a small example. The article says that Russell was against the idea of organization. The impression given is this:

1. Russell believed in the invisible church as Luther and as some modern ex-Witnesses.
2. The bad Watchtower has rejected what Russell taught so vigorously!

But...

... the article doesn't say that Russell regretted for that. You also don't say that Russell told people that they should get out of Babylon the Great (false Christendom) if they wanted to be saved.

Ah, now the picture becomes clearer, doesn't it?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not useful to merely remark, "Not good. Not fair."

Far better to be specific in criticism and to offer a specific alternative. You can do that now!

A week from now (I'd guess), any editor who feels that the article or the History section needs editing will be able to do so. Talk is not for complaining, but for explaining one's reasoning when wording etc is disputed or likely to be disputed.

If the article mistakenly includes a non-existent historical milestone, delete or correct it.

If the article's language gives undue weight somehow, correct it.

If a significant milestone has been excluded, include it succinctly. As was mentioned, this History section is NOT the main article. A reader here might be interested in reading or editing Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and/or History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Whatever you write or edit, step back from your point-of-view and present material in an encyclopedic form.

Not here or today, of course, but that's how Wikipedia works. If you're considering performing a major overhaul, you could create a sandbox on your user page of how you'd prefer the article to be, and (here at this Talk) invite other editors to comment there.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I am quite surprised that there isn't any mention of 'Babylon the Great' in the article. Beyond that, per AuthorityTam above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents and a half

After a cursory glance at the history section it does seem to be biased against a non-favourable view of the evolution of JW as an organization. Some claims about such as "Russel strictly rejected" are sourced only to Raymond Franz who is not a neutral source about this but a strict POV source - the view he expresses is that what he perceives as growing authoritarianism in the JW organization has led the followers away from russels original teachings. The article currently adopts Franz' viewpoint unquestionedly. The Penton source is equally problematic. I suggest that the two best and most neutral sources to the history of JW is Beckford 1976 and Holden 2001.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Holden has been criticised on this page and would like to express my view here. Holden is a professor of sociology and his book is the only current non-partial scholarly description of Jehovahs Witness organization and beliefs. He is not the only sociologist to have observed that the JW organization is not as non-hierarchical as they profess to be - Beckford also noticed the strictly hierarchical system of the orhganization in 1976. Whethe or not JW is as hierrarchic as the catholic church is an issue of opinion and I suspect that Holden merely included this information as a comparison - and indeed it is a striking and therefore provoking comparison. The objections to this comparison by vassilis78 seem to be mostly non-sequiturs and strawmen - for example it doesn't follow that because the figure of the pope as the head of the catholic church is similar to the president of the governing body as head of Jehovah's organization (after Jesus of course) that he also means the comparison to entail all the ways in which the pope has used his authority historically. I don't know whether it is correct that Holden has mistakenly described second adventists as seventh day adventists when stating who influenced Russel's early thinking, but I disagree that such a mistake should be seen as an aggravating mistake since it is not of any consequence for Holden's approach, arguments or conclusions. The issue of Russell's early thought is not even marginal to his description of the current social organization of the witnesses it is irrelevant. if he has indeed made such a mistake I suggest that you simply email him or Routledge publishers and make them aware of it so that they can change it in subsequent editions. In my view as an anthropologist who has conducted fieldwork among Jehovah's witnesses Holden's book is a very fine and neutral source about the social organisation of the witnesses and to their relation to modernity in society - those are the central issues that he describe.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, furthermore I think the most productive approach to improve the article here would be to pay more attention to atributing statements within the article. E.g. one could write Raymond Franz a prominent critic of JW has critized what he sees as a trend towards a higher degree of authoritarianism in JW since the days of Russel. ... On The other hand JW officials respond that .... Ex-witness and sociologist Penton accuses Knorr of allowing excessive drinking in Bethel, but JW responds that XXXX. This kind of writing would make for much clearer attribution of viewpoints and let the reader determine which viewpoint is most credible. As it is now the article leads the leader blindfolded to specific conclusions without a chance to see where they come from.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear •Maunus•ƛ,

First of all, I really appreciate your contribution and interest on the article.

Holden’s book, of course, cannot be excluded from the article, but at the other hand it must not be overestimated just because it claims to be a scientific study. When I first read Holden’s book, I was really shocked as to how easily he was ready to accept negative speculations about the motives of JWs, and on the other hand he fails to mention basic facts, such as the world-wide brotherhood of JWs. I really cannot see how a sociologist doesn’t even try to explain one of the major elements of JWs, how JWs have success in expanding in 236 countries, how JWs message attracts people from all nationalities, races and social classes, and how this “theology” succeeds in eliminating ethnic hatred.

Actually, it is needless to say that Holden’s parallelism of JW authority with that of Papacy proves a great deal of ignorance and prejudice. And when he calls “authoritarian” the appeal of Young People Ask book for honoring parents, then I am given the impression that only anarchy would comply with his standards for personal freedom.

In order to understand better my point, I would suggest you to have the chance to see for yourself the Young People Ask book. I really mean that.

So, what is Holden’s book? Is it a source for the history of JWs? No. It is a just a comparison between JWs and the modern (European) society from the standpoint of a liberal who does not generally accept the idea of religious truth and organized religion.

“I use modernity theory to inform my empirical data and to establish the Witnesses’ general status in the new millennium. Needless to say, the book is not about comparative religion but about the lives of a group of people who claim to be in but not of the world.” (p. xi)

“With the weakening of mainstream Christianity, monosemic beliefs have become ever more obscure and difficult to uphold, and this has led to significant changes in religious behaviour. The plurality of religious movements indicates that faith is now well and truly a matter of choice, and is no longer part of one’s membership of society. Davie (1994) suggests that the majority of people lack discipline in their spiritual orientation in a society in which it is common to believe without belonging. This modern form of religious expression allows the individual to select at will from a variety of goods that can be tailored to meet his or her lifestyle.18 Faced with so many rival movements – traditional, cultic and postmodern – no single religion can ever be the final arbiter of truth and falsity. In the absence of clear divisions and boundaries, a variety of religious beliefs and practices exist alongside monosemic and revelatory doctrines. The religious eclecticism of the modern world operates on the basis that we can all discern reality and that all versions of it are equally valid, as Bruce explains: Like the hominid creature drawn on charts of human evolution, who starts on the left-hand side as a small hunched hairy beast and gradually grows and sheds hair until he turns into the sleek human on the right, modernization has seen the individual grow and stand erect. From a stunted and ill-formed beast, subordinate to his Gods as he was subordinate to his political masters, the individual has risen in confidence, claiming first the right to make choices in ever-expanding spheres of behaviour and now insisting, . . . on the right to define reality and then, because the definitions clash, asserting relativism as the practical attitude”. (p. 37)

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis seems to be taking over every thread with his extended criticisms of books used as sources, and going to the point of creating empty section subheads, presumably with the intention of page-by-page criticisms of those as well, each of them burdened with dramatic and emotional expressions of disappointment that these authors don't see the world quite as he does. This is not the purpose of the talk page. Please address specific points within the article with suggestions of what changes you'd like made. LTSally (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is perhaps the information could be reworded. Perhaps, it could say that the Leaders of the JW's teach to have complete confidence (or implicit trust) in the organization. Thus you avoid heavily charged words such as "total" (totalitarian) "all." Or the same point could be made with different words. See [9][10] There are truly neutral articles to quote from. Though Holden may be neutral when a article draws off biased sources it affects the quaility of the product. He draws from David Reed for the info on "totalitarianism". Johanneum (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That you can find quotes to support something does not make it neutral, factual, or worthy of inclusion! I could do the same and say the Holocaust never happen, at least not similar to what most historians say. I could then go on to site the Famous British historian, David Irving who claims to give you the true facts about the holocaust. [11] He will have you believe that it really did not happen the way you believe and were taught. The Holocaust is a myth! Then there is Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who on December 14, 2005 stated "Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country." [12] (Speaking to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan) Inaddition I could go on to quote Dr. Robert Countess a prominent revisionist historian. Who has served as spokesman for CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust).Or the x-jw's Jim and Joe Rizoli.

Penton and Franz are dissidents. While most recognized they have value. It is also good to keep in mind the following quote- “Apostates are often very willing informants, but sociologists generally exercise considerable caution with respect to this possible source of evidence.” Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D. Emeritus in Sociology in the University of Oxford. Johanneum (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The challenge then is to keep a middle path. A year ago the sources for the article were 95 per cent Watch Tower publications, which provided a one-sided, uncritical view of the religion, its beliefs, practices and history. Through the addition of material by such authors as Holden, Penton, Franz, Gruss, Rogerson and the Bottings, a much wider range of views have been added, and, I believe, a deeper insight into it. Each has their weaknesses: Holden, as already shown, makes some fundamental errors in his history, but that's not his expertise and not something the article would draw on. The Bottings, Penton, Rogerson and Franz are all ex-Witnesses and fire the odd point of criticism (some obviously more than others), but none should be excluded because of that. Each have some rich detail (and often praise), they add to knowledge of the religion, and only a bigot would suggest every word of theirs is tainted. Franz may be scorned by present Witnesses, but he is fastidious in his presentation of detail about the workings of the Governing Body and history. The authors' past affiliation with the religion has obviously sparked their interest in writing about it, in precisely the same way an affiliation in whatever way (past or present) probably provides the motivation for most of the editors contributing to this article. We're passionate, or interested, but that passion or interest springs from something. Hopefully we can all be fair.

By all means highlight here specific points in the article you believe are unfair or inaccurate, and provide alternative sources that disprove those claims. I don't believe that requires removing all points that portray the Witnesses in a less than flattering light. The article doesn't exist to promote the Witnesses, but present facts of interest to enlighten the public. LTSally (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel you adress my poins but instead keep repeating the viewpoints you have already stated above. (this is not directed at LTSally since I wrote this while she was writing and it landed here after an editconflict) The most important point is this:

When beginning to construct a neutral viewpoint in an article the best way to go about it is to explicitly attribute all viewpoints to their sources and give good neutral evaluations of sources in the text. This lets readers think for them selves. This means that the text should say something like "Sociologist professor A Holden states that JW is a authoritarian organization but according to the witnesses themselves this is not the case" and According to ex-witness Franz the witnesses have moved away from Russels original ideas, but witnesses respond that..." I agree with Johanneum and Dr. Wilson that Penton and Franz should be used with caution and always with attribution of their claims directly to them. This means that we cannot have a case as we have now where the article states baldly that "Russell rejected " and trace this only to Franz. In order to achieve neutrality it must be "ex-witness Franz has stated that Russel rejected - but X and X state otherwise"

This is the most important point in what I've written above. The second also important point is that while you may not agree with what Holden has to say his study is the most reliable source (along with Beckford) because he is not an immediate party to any of the sides. As I already said and vassilis echoed his book is not primarily about the history, and Beckford is probably better for that, but about the sociological structure of the organization to day and the relation of the movement to modernity. What vassilis says about holden not accounting for the religions rapid spread and he certainly does not accept negative speculations - in fact his tudy is the first to work from the hypothesis that becoming a Jehovah's Witness is a Rational Choice and not something one is brainwashed or lured into becoming. Whether or not you agree with his calling Young People Ask authoritarian that waould be the only acceptable Sociological description of an ideology placing such emphasis on leadership in family and in social organization as the witnesses do - you fail to recognize that such a term when used sociologically is not laden with negative value - Holden does not say that authoritarianism is bad or compare it to fascism - he just describes how the social organization functions. And fact is that witnessea are explicitly told through all of the literature of the watchtower corporation to obey the leaders because they are put in their places by Jehovah - children must obey their parents, wives their husband, men their congregation elders, the elders the supervisors, the supervisors the governing body etc. This is not a bad or a strange thing, it is natural that some organizations are hierarchically and authoritarian in their structure - an authoritarian is the neutral word to describe such structures in sociological literature and say NOTHING at all about Holden's own preferences.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ (or Christianity, or even Roman Catholic Church) article does not include (at all, not to say at the introductory section) information like, Pharisees were thinking of him as the leader of the "Nazarene sect" but his diciples replied that "according to the Way which they call a sect we do serve the God of our fathers". (Acts 24:5, 14) Or, the testimonies say that people blamed him as a cannibal ("How can this man give us his flesh to eat?") but Jesus made clear to his close disciples that he was meaning something else. (John 6:48-58)
• Does it sound logical to you? Both of these statements --or blame/explanation incidents-- are true but this is not the way that they should be mentioned in an article.
• Also, I think that the above mentioned comment that Holden's study is "the most reliable source (along with Beckford) because he is not an immediate party to any of the sides" is a statement that we should think over. "The most reliable source". Ok, Holden is not a Jehovah's Witness neither a Jehovah's Witnesses' apostate. Let's assume that he is a pious Roman Catholic: what would be his preoccupation about Jehovah's Witnesses? Let's assume that he is an atheist: how he could think about worshiping a spiritual God or be ready to die instead of renouncing someone's faith? (Acts 7:59) I mean that the opinion that a writer "is not an immediate party to any of the sides" and this means automatically that he is the best source is not a good idea. -- pvasiliadis  14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, the difference is to do with the recency of the issues. As to your other point, are you suggesting that an athiest/Catholic cannot objectively analyse religious belief? Who would you posit as best to objectively examine a religion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden's personal beliefs are utterly irrelevant - he is the most reliable source according to WP:RS. His study is a scientific study published by a major publisher of scientific literature. And your example of outrageous claims abut jesus being a cannibal receiving the same attention as the more neutral viewpoint is basically a strawman refusing to consider my point that the best way to balance an article with several opposing viewpoints is by attributing them to their sources. If your argumentation does not raise abpve the level of providing caricatures of other editors viewpoints and disregarding WP:Policy then keeping on arguing makes no sense and I shall desist. Unless you begin providing actual arguments and suggestions for improvement this article is heading to mediation or Arbcom fast. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the reason I decided to chip in was that I noticed that this article is at an impasse - it is currently protected and unless you editors of the page begin colaborating towards improvement instead of repeating the same high strung opinions that saturate this page then you will get nowhere except mediation and arbitration. You must start by accepting that 1. wikipedia is a colaborative effort: refusing to colaborate is not an option. 2. the final version will not under any circumstabces be your favourite version: everyone will have to compromise and include in the artice those views with which they are in disagreement. 3. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help decide how to weigh sources against eachother and these policies and guidelines should be followed especially strictly in controversial cases. When this is done you can all begin to adress the issues of HOW to include the viewpoints with which you disagree and HOW to apply the wikipedia policies and weigh the sources against eachother. This will lead to progress, the current attitudes will not.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus. I agree 100%. Collaboration towards a compromise based on consensus is the only way to go. --Richard (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to make clear my position. I don't say that Holden doesn't have a place in the article, but I don't accept that he deserves a place in the prologue. The whole matter of congregational discipline and shunning is never mentioned in the prologues of other encyclopedias (In few days I will present a list), because it is not something so important. The major controversies have always to do with JWs refusal of military service and of blood transfusions. The judicial cases about them, the scientific articles about them, the news' reports about them are innumerable and of global interest, not only local. On the other hand the existence of two or three sociological studies that criticize the congregational discipline of JWs are not enough to put a topic at the prologue.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent: Now we're talking! Our best tool to decide what goes in the "prologue" which for wikipedia purposes is caled a lead is the policy of WP:LEAD which states that the lead must " briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". This means that if for example the issue of congregational discipline is decided to merit a section of its own in the article, then it must occupy a corresponding amount of space in the lead. As the current layout of the article is this means that it should be at most mentioned by a word in a paragraph summarizing the controversy section. This could read something like "Controversies surrounding Jehovah's Witnesses have involved their denial of military service, their refusal of blood and their ostracision of dissidents".·Maunus·ƛ· 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "The recency of the issues"? The mentioning of controversial dogma at the introductory paragraphs of an article depends on how old they are? I think that indeed it is a matter more of what is currently thought as orthodox/mainstream or not than anything else. But orthodoxy in itself is a wiki POV.

2. Jeffro, I mean as you also understand that personal point of view of a writer on a matter of religion can become obvious, as it is true for Holden as well. Also, concerning LTSally's comment about Proclaimers book, I would reverse your question: "Are you suggesting that a Jehovah's Witness cannot objectively analyse religious belief"?

3. ·Maunus·ƛ·, I gave two grotesque examples of what it means to couple controversial opinions. My point is that it is improper to start an article saying: "Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of Christianity [...] and also was blamed as a cannibal but [...]". The beginning paragraphs of the article seem like that to a degree at their current state ("Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian religious movement [...] several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or sect. Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members, with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing those who oppose its doctrines."). -- pvasiliadis  19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A better point would be that the lead of the Jesus article mentions that he is the central figure of christianity AND also a prophet of Islam. the lead of the jesus article als mentions that some scholars see apocryphal scriptures as good sources to knowledge about Jesus' life - also controversial opinions. This is how different viewpoints are to be included in a lead section. The Jesus as cannibal viewpoint is not notable enough to merit attention int he article but if it were it would have to go in the lead as well. Here the case is that the opposition to JW doctrine and practices IS notable and so it must also be present in the lead pr. WP:LEAD.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus said: Whether or not you agree with his calling Young People Ask authoritarian that waould be the only acceptable Sociological description of an ideology placing such emphasis on leadership in family and in social organization as the witnesses do - you fail to recognize that such a term when used sociologically is not laden with negative value - [...] This is not a bad or a strange thing, it is natural that some organizations are hierarchically and authoritarian in their structure - an authoritarian is the neutral word to describe such structures in sociological literature and say NOTHING at all about Holden's own preferences.

Maunus, what you say is wrong. Authoritarian doesn't mean hierarchical or organized, it doesn' mean only the existence of power or authority. Rather, it means (Webster): 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents* 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

For Holden, a person that dislikes organized religion and the existence of religious truth, JWs conviction for such things makes them authoritarian because they obey to principles he does not accept.--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are backtracking to something way up there but ok. I don't know how you know of Holden's personal feelings on religion he certainly doesn't figure in his book - where he talks explicitly about the need for the ethnographer to understand the wordlview of the persons he intends to study. Webster's dictionary doesn't define sociological usage of terms - rather you should look to the studies of Adorno and other sociologists working with authoritarianism if you want to understand what that term means in a socilogical context. Secondly both the definitions of the word in Webster's seem quite adequate descriptions of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs about how one should best live one's life (obeying Jehovah's commandments as they are transmitted by the faithful and discreet slave) and how they explicitly explain their social organization as a series of submissions by persons to their "heads" (child<mother<husband<elder<faithful and discreet slave<Jesus<Jehovah). ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a sociology textbook. Frankly, it seems odd to insist upon so much "sociological" commentary in a main article on a religious denomination. Do most Wikipedia main articles on religious denominations explore a sociological analysis of its adherents? Shouldn't that be relegated to a new article such as Jehovah's Witnesses sociology? That would placate the professional and amateur sociologists without needlessly complicating things for the hoi paloi (that is, most of us).

A typical Wikipedia reader connotes "authoritarian" with despotic totalitarianism. If certain editors feel that the word "authoritarian" is indispensable and scientifically defensible, I'll suggest the reasonably modified term: "sociologically authoritarian". Or maybe just keep the word "authoritarian" in quotes all the time.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to a similar date and time at the end of Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Authoritarian_.26_authoritarianism--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

For goodness sakes! Editors here keep harping on the same issues over and over again with virtually no substantive gain. This article is as screwy today as it was a year ago.

It glares like a supernova that editors with axes to grind on one hand, and cherished beliefs to protect on the other hand, over and over again fail to bring to the table a consensus view from third-party secondary sources, which are plentiful. Many a competent editor have left this article for the dogs because of the lunacy of radical editors.

My view is that this article will never find a scholarly presentation so long as anyone with present or past connections with Jehovah’s Witnesses is allowed to edit it. It has come to this extreme, in my view. Educated and trained contributors avoid the sort of naked bigotry demonstrated in the sort of constant bickering found within this subject entry. What is happening here is disgraceful.

Qualified or unqualified, for some time I have been unwilling to assist with this article, precisely because of the constant wasting of my time by grossly undereducated and bigoted editors. Though not all fit this profile, too many do. If anyone needs access to third-party secondary source material I will help them. Despite what a few have asserted to the contrary in the past, there is plenty of published literature by third-party sources in well respected academic literature. In the past when I made this available it was basically spit upon by editors here on both sides of the war zone.

I will not work for any of the current editors known to me as bigoted one way or another, and there are plenty on both sides. I will work for an editor (or editors) who demonstrates at least a modicum of skill, concern for authenticity and honesty. If you need source material I can help. Otherwise this article viewing has, in my view, been reduced to entertainment value only. Readers no longer look to the article page because of all the inbreeding and soap opera of the talk page. The Talk Page of this article has become the subject!!!Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I can understand that sentiment it is not constructive in the least. The page MUST be constructed in colaboration between all interested editors - there is no alternative to this since this is the way wikipedia works. Applying scornful epithets to fellow editors, stating with whom one is or isn't willing to work does NOTHING to improve the page but rather hurts any movement towards a consensus - but it does all to increase the level of drama and polarize the debate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus I am glad you have an opinion and am glad you felt free to share it. The point is history documents this page is unable to be constructed by collaboration between “all interested editors” precisely for the reasons I articulated. What I state may or may not have a polarizing effect. Nevertheless what I wrote is true. If it is true then it is a place to work from. There is no means of gain if the point of departure is misunderstood. Hence it is not unhelpful to point out the actual state of things, and offer to assist. On that point, I see you failed to as much as probe my offer to assist. Telling. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there was no way of telling who you offered to assist since that was veiled in accusation against other editors with whom you assured that you wouldn't colaborate. (telling?) Fact stands that unless the editors interested in this subject comes to their senses and begins to colaborate dispute resolution and arbcom are the only avenues of change- if you feel that that point has already been reached you should take steps in that direction in stead of voicing your desperation here. As for your offer to supply good sources I will say Thank you very much! - why don't you post some of the titles here and we will look them over and see how they fit in. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

also i don't understand your use of the phrase "work for an editor" - no editor works for other editors - every editor works for the readers.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus my offer to work for an editor (or editors) is to make research material available that is at my disposal in the form of third-party secondary sources published in academic journals and the like. These editors can make of this information what they will, and use it to strengthen the article in question. Because so many editors choosing to edit this article do not have good access to vetted material and because I do have good access to vetted material, then my offer stands to assist as a resource for this information. I have tried in the past to bring this material to the Wikipedia table by editing myself, with a result of a pure waste of my time in the face of radical editors. I won’t do it again. There are more beneficial ways of using one’s time and resources.

My offer is not to construct a catalogue of literature impinging the subject that is available to me. There is far too much inventory for that. Editors with access here have access to simple tools like a Google Scholar search where they can locate and somewhat narrow resources useful for this article. If they do not have access to the published material then, as a resource, probably I can help. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's good. Thanks. I do have access to most databases my self so in my case it probably won't be necessary, but if it does Ill let you know. (Frivolously assuming that I am among the editors that you do not object to colaborate with)·Maunus·ƛ· 15:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus for what it’s worth I have not read a shred from you that I would disagree with in terms of approaching the subject and constructing encyclopedic content. I have expressed much of the same things you have, only to have it overrun by a vast ocean of drama and bigotry documented in this discussion page’s archive. This is not shared as vent or sentimentality, or out of frustration. It is shared as a concise overview of the problem that plagues this article (and related ones, too). I have extended my help as I have because I have neither the time nor the inclination to hand even more of my time over to auxiliary processes such as you name. These auxiliary processes are time consuming and too often manned by people learning on the job. My guess is the likes of articles such as this one will achieve a level of good presentation only after the Wikipedia initiative develops methods and means to cope with radical editors; methods and means that are more discerning and less time consuming that current processes. Until now this level of development has not occurred. Otherwise we would not see the same grind and gridlock on this article today that we find from yesteryears. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your stance. I regret that you should have arrived at such a degree of resignation, but I believe that there are certain areas of wikipedia that are too controversial to ever achieve the maximal quality of coverage - this may be one of them, but I am not convinced that it cannot be improved.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for Marvin Shilmer

Hi Marvin, good to see you back. Seriously, I was wondering why I hadn't seen you on this Talk Page given the frequency with which you used to contribute and was getting ready to drop a note on your Talk Page to invite you to chime in. Haven't seen you around in a long time although I don't blame your unwillingness to waste time on this page. I don't spend much time editing here either for much the same reason.

However, I would appreciate your input on the basic question being asked here, though. Is this article inappropriately biased against the JWs? I think Vasilidis makes a good point that other articles on religions such as the Roman Catholic Church are far less negative. That is, they mention the criticisms but, for better or worse, detailed discussion of the criticisms are exiled to articles such as Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. The main article itself doesn't dwell much on the criticism.

I don't have time to go through a lot of sources and weigh them against each other. Sorry, my level of commitment to Wikipedia in general and to this article in particular is just not that high.

What I would appreciate is a sort of "thumb in the air to tell which way the wind is blowing" assessment of whether this article presents a fairly objective view of JWs or if it is overly negative, omitting the positive aspects as Vasilidis charges.

Since I respect your opinion greatly, I would be more willing to dive into some sources if you said something like "Well, this particular area needs more balance because of X,Y and Z".

--Richard (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard the balance of this article tilts back and forth throughout, and with no consistency. I see fingers on the scales in nearly every part of this article. Were it up to me the whole thing would have to be re-written. My own view is any main article (in this case about Jehovah’s Witnesses) should be presented as matter-of-factly as possible and should avoid characterizations everywhere possible. Certainly any characterizations would have to achieve a high threshold value of academic rigor!

To illustrate what I mean by matter-of-fact presentation, just take a look at the simple sentence “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians.” You know how much that assertion has been beaten to death here, and you can see the muddled up presentation on that point as it stands today. Though I have no problem with the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians,” it is nevertheless a characterization. On the other hand, the sentence “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to be Christian” is not a characterization; it is a matter-of-fact statement. It is simple. It is straightforward. It is provable. Yet radical editors on both sides object to either of the latter. Why? One side because it does not wax the image of the group as Christian; the other because it implies the group is Christian. In my case, one side argues that I do not assert the characterization in an encyclopedic article as this because I have dissenting views from specific Watchtower teachings; these assert I am biased against Witnesses. The other side objects that I remotely imply Christianity to the group; these apparently think I am insufficiently biased! Yet neither side is able to refute the authenticity of the sentences “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to be Christian” precisely because both are matter-of-fact presentations, and neither is refutable based on any bias that I may or may not hold. When editors refuse to accept matter-of-fact presentations then I begin looking for the exit. Honestly, I don’t see this problem going away any time soon, which is why I have offered my resources as I have above rather than as an editor.---Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marvin Shilmers characterization of the problem and his suggestions of how to adress it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The issue of the religion's claim to be Christian was hammered out twice, at length, with consensus reached and stability maintained from that point. The suggestion you make "profess to be Christian" is fine as well, but there is no objective right or wrong way to render this. The current wording seemes to have pleased everyone. LTSally (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Progressing from here

In order to progress from here I suggest starting an informal dispute resolution process here on the talk page while the page stays protected. I will attempt to identify the main issues of dispute and suggest possible pathes towards compromising. In the below comments should be inserted below the proposals, they should adress the proposal directly using sound arguments. Additional points of dispute may be added in the same format but they must include a proposal for progress.

I am not going to engage disputes here, but am going to offer observations and comments. Editors can make of it whatever they will.---Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Are jehovah's witnesses christians?

Proposal: Here I propose the suggestion by MarvinShilmers: We must state it as a simple fact that "Jehovah's witnesses profess christianity" or "Jehovah's witnesses see themselves as restoring the original christanity of the first century" (this is already included in the word restorationist that probably few readers know what means). The precise wording is open to discussion but the point should clearly be that Jehovah's Witnesses themselves identify as Christians.

comment Forgive me, but when was the last time anyone involved with this article argued the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians?"Isn't that introducing a new dispute?--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which time? Editors have exhausted themselves on this very point, and decided to move on because of what they viewed as radical editors who happened to have a majority presence at the time.---Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment Marvin shilmer adressed this point in his last example of what he believes is wrong with this page. If you do not disagree with the current wording that is just great. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My reason for selecting this particular issue in response to Richard's request of me is because it is at the beginning of the article in question and it well illustrates my reply to Richard's question of me. Right out of the box I recognized the current assertion as at odds with various majority-sets of editors who have form a then consensus at the time.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment Frankly, I'm unsure that Marvin Shilmer intended to present this particular issue as though it were unresolved. Anyway... Depends on which set of majority editors that happen to be interested in the subject at any given time. I have observed a wide swinging pendulum on this particular issue. Apparently you feel the issue is resolved.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While the errors of others are plainly not an excuse for one's own, it cannot be denied that dozens of articles, each on a self-described "Christian" religion, state quite plainly something similar to "[Denomination X] is Christian." Somewhere or other, I believe some Wikipedia guideline somewhere makes a pointed comment that the only nonneutral stance is to allow that particular self-description. I can look for that if this really does become a contested dispute. The current article wording is: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement." That seems well-sourced and acceptable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AuthorityTam. (I made this point above without reading down this far). Consensus was achieved after much vigorous debate. LTSally (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvinshilmer can you accept the current wording or do you propose to change it?

Regarding the Wikipedia project, I no longer have a preference I will offer one way or another about particular edits. I am sharing my observations here on the talk page only. Editors can make of my comments whatever they want. Whatever my preferences of edits, I would rather that not be an issue. Our preferences should not play any significant role in final editing. What we can prove and support with authoratative sources is everything. Preferences is what made the mess we see today.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment: Where did this point of issue come from?? and why is it listed first?? This issue has not been part of any current dispute. JWs are Christian by basic definition of the word, and this issue has been done to death. See Christian. No reasonable definition of Christian has ever been provided for this argument that would exclude JWs from being called a "Christian" religion. (And in case it is raised again, any editors' preference to call them a "Christian sect/cult" rather than a "Christian religion" is irrelevant to the issue of calling them "Christian".)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

?Consensus?: Suggest leaving the article's first sentence as is: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement." Consensus? Consider voting: "Yes, leave 2009-06-01 wording" or "No, change 2009-06-01 wording to [whatever]".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, leave 2009-06-01 wording--Soc8675309 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Did Rutherford introduce tenets and organizational ideas that were not approved of by Russel?

Proposal: here I propose that the best solution is to not deal with this aspect at all in the history section since it is not important. The idea that it is important to track whether certain developments in belief or organization are in accordance with Russels early ideas is not a neutral approach - it presupposes that Russels ideas were somehow more fundamental than what has been added since his days. However to a neutral description such issues are irellevant - just like a neutral description of the catholic church does not go into the issue about whether Jesus actually meant that St.Peter was supposed to be the first Pope when he said "you are the rock" etc. It is irrelevant to a neutral historical description which should only describe what happened - not why it happened or whether it was good or bad or in line with earlier ideas - those are value judgements that do not belong.

comment Yes, Rutherford's era changed some former teachings and introduced some new teachings. I'm surprised to learn this is a disputed point. Is it? --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AuthorityTam. Again. (This is getting scarey). LTSally (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Of course doctrinal changes happened during Rutherfors times - that is not the issue the issue is how to present them. For example this claim "Russell firmly rejected as "wholly unnecessary" the concept of a formal organization for his followers, and declared that his group had no record of its members' names, no creeds, and no sectarian name." seems to me to not be necessary or adequately sourced. The only way it can be read in this case is as a way to put up a dichotomy between Russells rejection of formal organization and what later happened. Such a claim seems to fit in well with Franz' agenda of "exposing" the ways in which the modern organization has "gone wrong" but it is certainly not the way the witnesses see the matter and it is also not the best way for a neutral encyclopedia to do it. I would strike this sentence all together if it cannot be sourced to a source that is more apt for this claim.

commentThe question is altogether wrong. We cannot speculate in Wikipedia if Russell would aprove Rutherford's decisions. The only thing we can mention is the facts. At the beginning, Russell formed a companionship. Then, ecclesias were formed. After that the body of elders were formed. As the number grew, changes had to me made for the organization of the household of faith.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

comment It can (and should) certainly be stated that JW beliefs changed from what Russell taught, but neither JW nor Russell's views should be presented as superior. Views that were introduced after Russell's death cannot be stated that Russell explicitly rejected those views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

commentViews changed, as you saw, even in Russell's time. Russell didn't believe in traditionalism but in restorationism. Neither was Rutherford's period the only one in which changes took place. But the question is, what is the point of this subject in the prologue? Is it something peculiar in the history of JWs? The majority of religious groups, among which Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants, have made significant changes in the course of time. But is this so notable that it should be mentioned in the prologue? --Vassilis78 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Phrases such as "firmly rejected" seem unencyclopedic to me.

"Firmly" isn't a weasel word, though it could represent undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

?Consensus?: Should any new teaching or arrangement be implied to be inferior (or superior) to the former? Consensus? Consider voting: "Yes, allow new-to-old value/validity comparisons" or "No, disallow new-to-old value/validity comparisons.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

?Consensus?: Should Russell's explicit or implicit ideas (or actions) be reiterated when discussing events anytime after his death? Consensus? Consider voting: "Yes, any of Russell's explicit and /or implicit ideas and actions can be reiterated regarding any change" or "Maybe, Russell's explicit ideas and actions can be reiterated when theologically significant" or "No, Russell's ideas and actions are best discussed contiguously".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sources: Which sources can be used for which purposes?

Proposal: I suggest that the use of Franz and Penton and other sources known to be written by dissidents should be limited and in all cases where the view their are cited for may not be universally accepted they should be explicitly attributed to them directly. Likewise with Watchtower sources: their use should be limited to stating the official view and should be attributed as in "Watchtower B&T Society teaches/states ...". Beckford 1975 is good for the social organization and develoment of JW in Britain, early JW history and certain aspects about doctrinal development. Holden is best for the modern sociological perspecitive, he is good for overarching characterizations of beliefsystems (rationalism, averting risk, aversion to medernity)and organization (hierarchy, authoritarianism) and he is notable for his insights into the questions about WHY some people chose JW as their religion.

comment It seems best to avoid the near-weasel word "studies say". It also seems best to limit the article to what would normally be discussed in an encyclopedic article on a religion. Do Wikipedia articles about SDA or LDS explore "WHY some people chose JW as their religion"? --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment I agree that "studies say" is a no-no.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't see why sociological studies adressing motives for recruitment and defection could not be a part of an article about a religion. Specifically for smaller religions such issues are heavily presented in the literature, and I believe they should be adressed in the article in a way that is proportional to its treatment in the literature about the subject. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment No blanket policy can be imposed on which authors may be used for which observations. As noted above, Franz is obviously a strong critic of Jehovah's Witnesses, but his knoweldge of the inner workings of the Governing Body and doctrinal changes (since he and his colleagues were directly responsible for many of them) make him a valuable source for many. This discussion has been valuable for highlighting the problems os using sources inappropriately and the need to achieve balance. Since I have been the one to add many of those external (ie, non-WT sources) I am happy to work more diligently to avoid bias. But common sense and consensus will dictate the use of sources. LTSally (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

'comment You are right that we cannot decide in a clearcut fashion what studies can and can't be used for. My purpose here is to make everyone acknowledge that all sources have merits when used to source different content and that no source can be rejected out of hand. Vassilis for example has already admitted that the Holden source has its uses - when this is agreed upon by all we can proceed to discuss whether specific instances of sourcing make use of appropriate sources to appropriate claims. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

comment Per LTSally. If Franz says "JW are bad", we can't use that, but if Franz says "The Governing Body operated in this or that way at the time", that would be appropriate. The terms 'apostate' should not be used to describe authors who are former JWs, as the term is employed by JWs as a pejorative. For controversial statements it should be stated if a source is a former member, but for uncontested statements, status as a member is irrelevent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

commentThe problem is that Franz doesn't just say JW are bad - the non eutral viewpoint is often subtle as in his statements about what Russel rejected and believed - this example for instance sets up a dichotomy between Russel and JW that may only exist or be important to him, but not to the witnesses.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Authoritarian?

Proposal: We need to figure out how to refer to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses demand a much higher degree of doctrinal agreement from its members than most other religions do. In sociological terms the degree of control of beliefs and private behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses is clearly authoritarian which has been concluded by both Holden and Beckford and I personally prefer this as a neutral descriptor. However I can see form the article history that this is the last point of contention among the editors here. How do we solve it? How about instead of classifying describing in which way they are authoritarian? This would seem to be the "matter of fact approach" advocated by MarvinShilmer. In this case we could write something along the lines that the organization is hierarchically layered with doctrinal matters being discussed only at the upper levels and that disagreement with official doctrine by ordinary members can lead to their being censured or disfellowshipped. We could also write that subordination to authority is an important aspect of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No problem. I provided some references above for this, from external sources and from WT literature explaining why they see this as necessary. LTSally (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

commentThis is completely out of the scope of the prologue. This is not a major controversial issue.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

comment well, your own last edit before the protection is a removal of the term authoritarian which was again promptly remverted[13]. I would say that shows that it IS a point of controversy.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

commentPer LTSally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Matter-of-Fact Presentation?

I am curious of editors’ preferences. Is there a consensus that a matter-of-fact presentation of this subject is best to resolve this article, to include a minimizing of characterizations as much as possible? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the facts of the matter are agreed upon by consensus then I certainly support that approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Matter-of-fact" presentation as opposed to what? LTSally (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

as opposed to characterizations as he stated above. i.e. not "they are authoritarian" but "the organizations encourages obedience in this way and punishes disobedience in this way". Not "they are christians" but "they believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ"·Maunus·ƛ· 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can source these so-called generalizations, then I don't see why we have to avoid them. "They are Christians" is much more straightforward and sensible than is "they believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What then Carl when we can source opposing views? About christians we can find sources saying both things. Is it not most neutral then to state the fact of the matter, namely that they call them selves christians?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying 'they call themselves Christian' can very easily be interpreted as a weaselish way of saying 'they claim they're Christian, but they're not'. No definition of 'Christian' (other than invalid claims about Trinitarianism) that excludes JWs has ever been presented, and JW beliefs about Jesus as Christ, their saviour, redeemer, exempler, God's son etc etc are plainly clear from their beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the result of such a "matter-of-fact" presentation were consistent with Wikipedia articles for other Christian denominations, then it seems likely it will enjoy consensus. A consensus seems less likely if a "matter-of-fact presentation" refuses to allow an introduction similar to:

• 'The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Christian denomination', or
• 'Christadelphians are a Christian group'
• 'Anglicanism is a tradition of Christian faith.
• 'The Roman Catholic Church is the world's largest Christian church'

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we source opposing views here Maunus? Jeff's point is very good. In addition, he has pointed out somewhere on this page that this particular example, the Christian issue, has been beaten to death. They're Christian, there's no need to be weaselly about it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvin conflates two issues which are not exactly the same here.

As to JWs being "Christian", the problem is determining which definition of "Christian" to use. The problem is that a non-trivial number of Christian denominations (almost all of them Trinitarian, of course) might not include JWs in their definition of Christian. It is therefore POV to adopt the JW assertion that they are Christian over the assertions of those Christians who assert that the JWs are not Christian. It's not clear what the mainstream believes regarding this question. (This, of course, begs the question "mainstream of what? of Christianity? or of religious scholars?")

An NPOV presentation would present both assertions without making any assertion as to which is correct. Alternatively, we could take Marvin's approach and say the JWs believe that Jesus was Christ, the Messiah and leave it to the reader to decide whether that means they are Christian. I prefer the first approach of presenting both sides as being more informative to the reader. I reject Carl.bunderson's assertion "they're Christian, there's no need to be weaselly about it".

As to JWs being "authoritarian", the problem is that there is no objective definition of "authoritarian". Authoritarian is a subjective assessment based on a comparison to something else. Determining who is authoritarian is somewhat akin to determining which countries are police states. We don't say that the Catholic Church is authoritarian although it has been in the past and tries to be to some extent even now (e.g. refusing Communion to those who support pro-abortion laws). I agree with Marvin that we should simply say what the JWs do rather than try to slap a label such as "authoritarian" on them.

--Richard (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'problem' regarding whether JWs should be called Christian is a bit of a red herring. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that Unitarians are Christians. Citing JWs as Christian is not merely a POV to adopt the JW assertion at all, whereas the assertions that JWs are not Christian on the basis of not accepting the Trinity are indeed not only a biased POV, but a POV not even officially endorsed by the Catholic Church. The reason for indicating JWs as Christian in the article is not because JWs say they are Christian, but because their beliefs demonstrate such identification. It is not balanced to only say that JWs 'profess to be Christian' (or similar), unless you are suggesting that it would be appropriate to do so for all other religions that claim to be Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree. Witness literature venerates Christ, he features in their prayers, they claim to follow in his footsteps, they celebrate the memorial of his death, issue books about his life, he features in their eschatology, they identify him as king of the kingdom for which they await ... what else would you want? Hedging on the matter, saying they claim to be Christian but some other ... er, Christians, say they are not, becomes hair-splitting navel gazing. Who determines the rules for being Christian? Unfortunately Jesus hasn't left specific instructions on that, so if they say they are, and demonstrate this so comprehensively, then it's fair to call them Christian. LTSally (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: My remark to Richard about the assertion “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian” was not to argue in favor of or against that statement or any other related to it. I was illustrating the point of constant engagement in this article that has kept it in disarray and disrepute for so long. Editors have made every attempt to wax the subject from both perspectives by asserting characterizations rather than matter-of-fact statements. Personally, I have no problem with the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian,” though it is a characterization, so long as whatever is in support or dispute is part of the article in plain-spoken factual terms.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: “Christian” vs “Causing divisions”? Both these terms are characterizations that I have addressed in my recent participation here. Though I see no reason to avoid one of these I see every reason to avoid the other. As a term “Christian” has some common understanding and Witnesses arguably fit that profile, hence there is a basis for readers to understand what is being said. On the other hand, the term “causing divisions” as used by Watchtower carries a meaning far different from what is commonly understood by the phrase; hence this characterization should not be used. It imparts nothing factual and implies something altogether different than how the term is applied by Watchtower. Use of this term is no more than waxing over the reality of how Watchtower squashes dissenting voices under a banner of “scripturalness.”--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, you read me like a book.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears a consensus has been reached over the deletion of the word "authoritarian". It hasn't appeared in the draft lead section for some time and appears nowhere else in the main article. The issue of authoritarian control has been covered with a sentence that focuses on the specific area of intolerance of dissent. LTSally (talk)

Comment: I see no need for using the characterization “authoritarian” when expressing the reality of squashing public voicing of a dissenting view with the weapon of “disfellowshipping” is the issue. Just tell it how it is and source the information, and let readers decide what to make of it. On this point, the article should not suggest the shunning enforcement is plied at extravagant levels of dissent. All it takes is public voicing of dissent on a single significant teaching from Watchtower to threaten a member’s respect and social status within the religion and among family members who are part of the religion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)