Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

External links

I don't know what status quo is here these days, and I don't want to stir up trouble by removing content. However, there have been a handful of external links added recently by anonymous editors that I would tend to view more as promotion than useful resources. Most of these links are critical of JW doctrine or the WBTS in some way, so I think it would be a conflict of interest for me to remove them myself. The ones I'm most concerned with are the last three; the video, the "defense of Orthodox Christology", and the statistics. Could one of the regular non-JW editors review these and give input on whether they should stay? It's always good practice (no matter what the article's subject) to have a very minimal external links section containing high quality resources and avoid linking sites for purely promotional purposes. Pursuant to that I have removed one recently added link which I believe most of you will agree is out of place on a Wikipedia article.

On any other page I tend to remove external link additions by totally uninvolved editors because they are nearly always added simply for promotion. However, I realize this can be a touchy issue for this subject and would rather get your opinions first. -- mattb @ 2007-03-27T23:49Z

I'd say, go ahead and remove inappropriate ones as long as you provide a justification in the edit summary. If someone reverts you with a valid justification, either leave the link or talk about it here. I removed two just now, myself: to a forum and to an essay. The rest I found mostly okay, some borderline, but I have no problem with them. -Amatulic 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so some feel that the critical video link should stay. I watched about half of it (skipping around), and didn't see anything that was factually incorrect, but I do feel that the video borders on misrepresenting a lot of our doctrines. Perhaps this is just my bias shining through and they are representing JW doctrines through the eyes of those who promote "patriotism, traditional values, family values and the 'biblical worldview of the founding fathers' of the United States", as the Wikipedia article puts it. Still, the film makes no effort to be balanced, and as far as I can tell doesn't cover any territory that this and other WP articles do not (but in a much fairer manner).

I won't press this issue, I'm just explaining why I thought to remove the video. The only other concern that we should consider is whether that video is legally on Google video. Per WP:C, if it was uploaded there without the copyright holder's consent, then we should not link to it (this was a big debate over at WP:EL). Would someone like to email Jeremiah Films to make sure that they consented to the video's upload? -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T17:06Z

The description of the film says it's critical so it's obviously not balanced. But, being balanced is nearly impossible on this sort of subject. To be honest, having watched "Knocking" recently (which is also well done), I'd say it's not balanced also. I think the article benefits by having a wide spectrum of views presented on such a controversial subject. I linked a trailer that was uploaded to YouTube from "Knocking" to help balance the links. I assumed it was a legal upload there. Perhaps that should be checked too? Dtbrown 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the YouTube trailer for Knocking is on the up-and-up; I know some of the people involved with making that documentary (it's been in production for a long time, too) and I'd heard smackings of a trailer being released like this. However, if there's a question in your mind, it is equally important to make sure that clip isn't copyright infringement as well.

I somewhat disagree that it's impossible to produce a reasonably balanced presentation on JWs as I've read some secular sources that do a pretty decent job, even if they do have a hint of bias either way. The Jeremiah Films video, I dare say, is well into lambasting territory, and I tend not to agree that one may find a balanced view through consideration of opposite extreme views. However, as I said, I won't make any fuss over this link, I'm just providing my thoughts for your consideration. As far as Knocking is concerned, I don't have much of an opinion. I thought it was well done and generally fair, definitely with a bit of an amiable tone towards JWs. I haven't actually seen the final cut of it. The version I saw was nearly finished, but still had some things that were going to be edited, but the indication was that the final cut will be pretty similar to what I saw. Still, from what I've seen, I would venture to say that it at least attempts to be fair. Anyway, I'll leave this alone now unless you'd like to discuss it further.

I'm going to add a link to the Wikipedia article on Jeremiah Films next to the link to their video. I was surprised that an article on them exists, but since it does I think it's relevant to link to. Also, would someone else be so kind as to email Jeremiah Films to inquire as to the legality of the clip on Google video? For personal reasons I'd rather not ask them myself (I will if I must). -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T22:06Z

I went to the Jeremiah Films website. They sell other films about JWs but apparently do not handle this one anymore. I know the video has been sold by many other outlets for nearly 20 years.Dtbrown 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article on Jeremiah Films. Not exactly NPOV, I'd say, though there appears to be some valid criticism in it. I'm not wanting to discuss the merits of either film other than to say that bias is extremely hard to judge when it comes to religious issues. Dtbrown 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That it's no longer sold by them doesn't mean that they've relinquished copyright... -- mattb @ 2007-03-31T04:24Z

Eh, bias isn't hard to spot, but it may be difficult to fully quantify. Anyway, I don't feel the neccessity to open that can o'worms. :) -- mattb @ 2007-03-30T02:06Z

Thanks for replacing the statistics external link, by the way, I wasn't aware that article existed on Wikipedia, but internal articles are always preferred over external links. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T17:09Z

I've added an invisible (only visible when editing) note to the books and links sections. This is commonly done in other high profile or controversial articles where there is a high tendency for anonymous editors to add links to resources as their only contribution. This is often interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SPAM and WP:EL policies, so the note asks people to discuss the reasons for their wanting to include the link here before doing so (hopefully this will help us weed out actual good resources from editors simply seeking promotion for their book or site). The text of the message reads as follows:

Please discuss any books you wish to add to this list on this article's talk page
before adding them.  To avoid spam, link creep, and keep the resources in this
section of high quality, we want to discuss any external resource inclusion before
it is added.  Thank you!

I also removed a couple of book resources which I could not determine to be valuable or simply promotional. If any of our experienced editors knows these to be good references, feel free to re-add them. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T03:10Z

Good idea! Thanks for adding that! Dtbrown 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for changes for the external links. Jwdom.org appears to be offline. I suggest we replace it with Jwfacts.com. I also think the Theocratese Glossary ought to be listed as well. It's a little dated but still quite informational and entertaining. As an aside, I think we should think about developing a page that explains JW vocabulary. Dtbrown 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

JWdom.org is now back online. April 23, 2007

When can JWdom.org be added back?

Personally, I would like to retain Jwfacts.com instead. What do others think? Dtbrown 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about JWdom.org. JWfacts can stay. Who deleted JWdom.org after I posted it back online few days ago? April 27, 2007

One or the other seems sufficient. You guys make the call since I'm not really able to fairly judge which is the better resource. -- mattb 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

JWdom.org.

I see much of the old gang is gone. Just wanted to see what others thought of the sections ("other sites" and "further reading") as they stand now. Dtbrown 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown External Links?

I don't think I like the idea of breaking down the external links category into "Further Information" and "Criticism" as that can imply to some people that the only "unbiased" information is in the "Further Information" section. We could (and this has been tried before) have "Positive," "Neutral," and "Critical" Resources but the judgment calls on that are all subjective. How to rank the BBC and Knocking links, for example? I think we should go back to the way it was and have all external links merged together. Dtbrown 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd keep it as before, just lump all the external links into one section and let the reader sort it out. As long as we clearly mark each link (they already are) it will be fine. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T21:52Z

I put it back the way it was and re-titled one. Objections? Dtbrown 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally I object. I'm the one who originally made the change. There is ample precedent for this elsewhere, to organize external links into subsections that indicate the point of view of the link. This is appropriate for any article having a subject that elicits varying biases and points of view. Having a subsection titled "criticism" doesn't imply that other subsections are unbiased.

To me, it made no sense to have a mish-mash of external links all collected together in one group. I recommend restoring my edit, but re-titling the "Further information" section to something else. I didn't want to label it "pro" versus "con" because articles like the BBC are simply what I called it, further information, but not an "official source" of information about JW. -Amatulic 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was tried before and people kept arguing over whether a resource was neutral, pro or con. There are some people who'd consider the "Knocking" link not to be neutral but pro, even though it has a few critical points in the movie. The decision was made quite awhile ago to merge the links. Of course, that can be revisted but I think that would be a bad idea. Dtbrown 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mstare88's edits

WHY ARE MY EDITS ALWAYS DELETED! ALL I DO IS SPEAK THE TRUTH! Please resopnd. anyone can respond.Mstare88 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at your contributions, it's either because your edits are misleading, wrong, simply out of place in the article, or push a point of view. This latter issue is a rather sensitive one, especially on controversial articles. I encourage you to read WP:NPOV to get a handle on how point of view is (supposed) to be handled on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if the removal of your text is discouraging, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to suggest an edit you want to make on the talk page (here) before making it in the article, that way we can give you feedback on it. Of course, you aren't required to do this and are still welcome to edit the article directly, but realize that "your writing [will] be edited mercilessly [...] by others". -- mattb @ 2007-03-30T13:40Z

It seems you've made only 2 edits on this article (unless you're also editing anonymously). Of those edits, one was unnecessary, and the other was blatantly POV. If you make any worthwhile edits, they won't be removed.--Jeffro77 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination"

I'm sure many of you are thinking "Oh no, not again". Well, not "again" in the sense that this topic has been discussed and beaten to death above. I do not propose to rehash all of the debate on this topic solely for the purpose of debating it to death again.

However, I note that there is and probably always will be a continuing controversy about this question and that new editors show up from time to time wishing to assert that JW is not a Christian religion/denomination/sect/whatever.

For example, User:Matt Britt recently reverted User:Mejohnson34's edit replacing "Christian denomination" with "religious denomination". In doing so, Matt justified his revert with this edit summary "JWs do not deny the divinity of Christ, they deny the Trinity doctrine. The assertion that denial of this makes them non-Christian is discussed in detail on the talk page".

I looked on this Talk Page and "discussed in detail" is a gross understatement. The detail is overwhelmingly long and I have no desire to read all of it. I think it is unreasonable to ask a new editor to read the entire debate in order to come away with an understanding of the issue and the consensus (if such exists).

For this reason, I propose that we create a page called Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/JW as a Christian denomination wherein a succinct and NPOV exposition of the issue is presented along with a definitive statement of the consensus that has been developed on this issue. If no consensus exists, then let us work to develop one. If we have to, let us open an RFC on the issue. But let us resolve this by creating an NPOV consensus that can be defended going forward.

Once this has been done, any edits that depart from the agreed upon consensus can be reverted with reference to the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/JW as a Christian denomination page.

--Richard 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of work to do simply to be proactive for the rare editor who understands this issue thoroughly and wants to debate it. You guys are welcome to start working on such a thing, but I can think of better ways to spend my editing time. I think that the issue is pretty clear as is; the regular editors of this page agree on the current phrasing and most of the dissenters' arguments would have to be applied to every other "Christian"-related WP article to make them valid here. I don't see any particular reason to jump into the mire of bureaucracy that is RFC. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T18:06Z

You might also want to look at Talk: Christianity. It gets pretty ugly over there on this subject too. Even when JW's are not involved in the debate. The consensus has been to be inclusive of JW's since the majority of reference material is. George 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been involved in the discussions at Talk:Christianity although I am not one of the more prolific contributors. The experience that I'm sharing comes from working on other articles such as Aztec and United States where there are repeated controversies and where it is easier to simply document the consensus and the rationale behind them. If the explanation is short, it is done as an "in-line" comment in the article itself. If it's long, it's done on a subpage of the Talk Page. Once that's done, it's easier to mention the explanation than to re-explain things to every new editor that comes along.

--Richard 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to mention this at Talk:Christianity. George 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, then again, I'm starting to see that there may be utility in such a thing... Perhaps a modified bulleted list version of the summary response I gave in a section below might be a starting point. It seems that this does come up often enough to have an easy-to-digest explanation of why the page classifys JWs as Christian. I don't really think this will stop people from wanting to debate it, but it would give us something to point to and ask that people understand before presenting their arguments. -- mattb 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links Suggestion

I had mentioned this earlier but I think it may have been missed:

A couple of suggestions for changes for the external links. Jwdom.org appears to be offline. I suggest we replace it with Jwfacts.com. I also think the Theocratese Glossary ought to be listed as well. It's a little dated but still quite informational and entertaining. As an aside, I think we should think about developing a page that explains JW vocabulary. Dtbrown 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been a few days since I brought this up, I decided to "be bold." If this was premature on my part, please chime in! Dtbrown 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian

Jehovah's Witnesses have historically rejected the tenets of the Christian Faith and are classified as a cult. There is no credible Christian source that would recognize Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian organization.

Except for most secular sources and by their own self-identification. How would you respond to the assertion of, say, a devout Protestant that the Catholic faith is not Christian? Regardless of inter-denominational bickering about "what defines Christianity", it's best to use a broad secular definition of Christian for our purposes. I encourage you to scroll up on this page and peruse some of the previous discussions on this topic. Consensus is to continue to use the secular definition of Christianity in this article, which JWs fall under. -- mattb 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement, "no credible Christian source" employs "weasel words".--Jeffro77 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words or not, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been recognized as a cult and not Christian. Let's say I assert that I am a parrot...does this make me a parrot? All cults are a bad counterfeit of Christianity, so of course they will state they are Christian as it lends more credence to their claims. Ironically, in another article on Wikipedia about the Jefferson Bible, Jefferson is labeled as a Deist when he himself claimed to be a Christian. This shows that Wikipedia doesn't always use simply what the person or organization claims about themselves. How on earth can you label a group as Christian that rejects virtually every foundational claim of Christianity? Jehovah's Witnesses are not just a "denomination," but a completely different animal from Christianity.

This was discussed in length earlier. By the most basic, secular, and unbiased definition of "Christianity", JWs qualify. It's totally untrue that JWs "reject virtually every foundational claim of Christianity", just a handful of later doctrines. Hyperbole doesn't make your point. I'm sorry, but as I stated before, Wikipedia uses a secular definition of Christianity, not one that caters to the doctrinal views of any group. -- mattb 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, your assertion that you are a parrot does not make you a parrot. Your repetitive 'parroting' that JWs are a cult makes you a parrot. JWs believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The definition of Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is what makes them Christian. It doesn't get any simpler. Beliefs superfluous to the teachings of Christ may identify an individual as a subset of Christianity, but none of those subsets precludes them from the broader definition.--Jeffro77 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Just a handful of later doctrines?" That is spoken like a true Jehovah's Witness. It is not hyperbole, whatsoever. The doctrines to which we are referring are the most important to the Christian faith and always have been. They are not "just a handful of 'later' doctrines." Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus to be the archangel Michael and a created being. Christianity asserts that Jesus is God, the son. Christianity teaches that Jesus has been eternally co-existent with God the Father. JW's believe Jesus was created before His existence on earth. Christianity teaches that Jesus "created all things and without Him was not anything made that was made." JW's believe that Jesus was the very first creation by God. Christianity as a whole is and always has been Trinitarian. JW's reject the Trinity. JW's are, by nature, not an orthodox Christian organization. The definition of Christianity from Dictionary.com states (definition #1): "the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." From Merriam-Webster: (definition #1): "the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies" The definition of Jehovah's Witness from Merriam-Webster? (definition #1): "a member of a group that witness by distributing literature and by personal evangelism to beliefs in the theocratic rule of God, the sinfulness of organized religions and governments, and an imminent millennium" Ironically, no mention of the word Christian or Christianity...Again, from dictionary.com (definition #1): "A member of a religious denomination founded in the United States during the late 19th century in which active evangelism is practiced, the imminent approach of the millennium is preached, and war and organized governmental authority in matters of conscience are strongly opposed." Again, no mention of Christ, Christianity or Christian. The Encyclopedia Brittanica??? "an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world; the group is an outgrowth of the International Bible Students Association founded in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell" Again, no mention of Christianity or being a Christian organization. It seems that only Wikipedia wants to insert Christianity into the JW cult and yet, with something like the Jefferson Bible, where Jefferson actually claims to be a Christian, they want to label him a Deist. Seems like there is quite the anti-Christian bias here at Wikipedia since we are on the subject of bias. Might i suggest an article? http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-05-27

If you read some of the earlier talk you'll see citations from standard encyclopedias (such as the World Book Encyclopedia and others) that refer to JWs as "Christian" as they also use a secular sense of the word, not one defined by a particular religious view. Dtbrown 04:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I wrote the following while Dtbrown wrote his own response. I suggest you review Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and the previous discussions on this page which address all of your objections. In short, by secular definitions, Christianity isn't necessarily synonymous with the Holy Trinity doctrine. None of the secular definitions of Christianity you quoted preclude JWs since they profess belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Omission is not comission; I can point to several more "mainstream" Christian denominations (like Lutheranism) which are also not explicitly called Christian by a handful of dictionaries I have. Rather than engage in a neverending theological debate over what constitutes a "true Christian" (the answer to which will be very much disagreed upon by those of the aforementioned Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox faiths), we use a simple secular definition that errs on the side of inclusion. Suggesting that the Trinity doctrine has always been a part of the Christian faith completely ignores history and is nothing but an endorsement of a particular doctrinal view. I'm not interested in engaging in the same debate that played out earlier, so I again ask you to read that text before posting again as I won't respond any further to arguments that have been brought up before. I've only responded here to summarize the position and perhaps save you some lengthy reading. Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude, just avoiding unneccessary re-hashing of dialog.

Please stop removing the text you disagree with from the lead of this article as it will only be restored to conform with the version that is most agreed upon. Wikipedia works by editor consensus, and consensus led to the current article's text. You're welcome to continue discussing this here if you like, but continuing to revert an article to a preferred revision is rather disruptive and is highly frowned upon. I further ask you to look at the copyright policy. Inserting text into a Wikipedia article that is directly copied from Encyclopædia Britannica violates their copyright and is against our rules. Thanks. -- mattb 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently actually being factual and correct must also be against Wikipedia "rules." To label a recognized cult as a legitimate Christian denomination does absolutely no one, except the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, any good. One wonders how you can define something such as Christianity from no particular religious point of view. JW's fall outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. To equate them with denominations that fall within the pale of orthodoxy is senseless at best and heinous at worst. There is no justifiable reason to label them as Christian. You say the JW's "profess belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings." This is true only insofar as they believe what they have rewritten in their own Bible (The New World Translation) which is rejected as being an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. Simply put, when a JW talks of Jesus, they are not talking about the same Jesus that Christianity embraces and worships, much like the Mormons/Latter Day Saints use the same language as Christianity but mean something far different when referring to Jesus. There has been no good reason given, except some phantom "secular definition of Christianity" to accept the JW's as anything but a cult. As far as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I apologize. However, it is far more egregious to call JW's a Christian denomination than it is to copy an accurate definition from another source. In addition, to claim that the Nicene Creed does not teach from a Trinitarian view point is just plain wrong. The Nicene Creed stands in stark opposition to the teachings of the JW's. I would also add a suggestion....that would be that the JW's are treated like the Mormons are on Wikipedia. It is informational and much less controversial to show how they disagree with mainstream Christianity rather than simply call them Christian because they claim to be so.

I linked the Nicene Creed to point out that the Trinity doctrine was not always a part of Christianity, counter to your claim. That creed was the point at which most of Christianity "officially" adopted the doctrine that had been developing in the years prior. Again, I've asked you to stop changing the article against the consensus we've established here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Your arguments are not novel and have been addressed in detail above. What's more they are full of your own opinion, which isn't any basis for argument. It's absolutely fine that you reject the JWs as Christian on theological grounds, but Wikipedia isn't obliged to endorse that point of view. -- mattb 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased anonymous editor, your rant is replete with weasel words and baseless claims. The lynchpin of your claim is that JWs do not believe the Trinity. However, it was previously demonstrated in this talk page that even Catholic sources do not preclude non-Trinitarian groups from being Christian. Though there are a small number of differences in the JW translation of the bible (and though some of those differences are significant), it is essentially the same as any other translation, and cannot honestly be described as "rewritten". The comparison to Mormons is therefore also invalid, as they do not introduce additional writings that they regard as inspired. Their beliefs are just as tenuous as any other Christian religion, and there is nothing in their belief system that is outside of a secular definition of Christianity. The fact that JW doctrines can be disproved from the Bible is irrelevant to their claim of Christianity. This issue has already been thoroughly discussed.--Jeffro77 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this keeps coming up, and I've seen the existence of consensus on this matter challenged, I've brought it up on the Christianity talk page. I feel there is plenty of consensus to merit keeping the current text, but getting the opinions of a broader group of editors will hopefully clarify this further and invalidate claims of insufficient consensus. -- mattb 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two sides to this debate. One side says that Christian means a person who believes the teachings of Jesus Christ, which actually is the definition of Christian. The other side says that Christian is synonymous with Trinitarian, which is simply unfactual. It has already been established that even Catholic sources acknowledge that non-Trinitarian groups are Christian. There really is no debate.--Jeffro77 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Christian' means someone that does not twist extremely pertinent parts of the bible; eg. saying that there is no Gehenna, saying that there is no sheol, saying that only 144 000 will go to heaven, saying that this quota is already full, misusing the word YHWH, and perpetuating the mistranslation of the word into 'Jehovah', practising polytheism, denying the deity of Jesus by rewriting the places where he is worshipped in the bible, in the NT where the word Kurios pertains to God rewrite it to say 'Jehovah', where it pertains to Jesus write it as 'Lord', say that every single other religion (without exception) is the harlot riding the scarlet beast (revelation 17/18), etc, etc. Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. BMurray 12:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the things you list, along with a myriad of other doctrines held by various other Christian religions are subsidiary to being 'Christian', and are a subset thereof. Your definition of 'Christianity' is flawed. Refer to Christian.--Jeffro77 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it's worth, items number 1, 2, 4, and 7 are not correct. Most of your other issues are your own spin and constitute your opinion why JWs are not Christian, not any solid tangible definition. -- mattb 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are only about 8,500 JWs alive today who make up the final part of the 144000 who will go to heaven; therefore, the "quota for heaven is full" (according to JW).

'Yahweh' is scriptually used in reference to God's covenant with Israel. JW believe themselves to be 'Israel'. JW are highly literal in many areas except this area, which they take idomatically to denote themselves (JW). Paul hammers home in the book of Romans that God is still zealous for Israel and has made provisions for a 'remnant'. BMurray 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether JWs are Christian.--Jeffro77 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If one says that the only prerequisite of being under the Christianity heading on Wikipedia is to believe in Jesus Christ and follow his teachings, then Islam would have to be placed under Christianity, because they too believe in Jesus Christ as one of the greatest prophets and they see his teachings as something everyone should live by.

Muslims profess no belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God nor do they view him as their savior or the center of their religion (all criteria mentioned in the first few sentences of Christianity). More importantly, Muslims do not self-identify as Christian or claim to believe in all of Jesus Christ's teachings. JWs do. Again, trying to push one's own theological definition of Christianity could easily exclude other more mainstream denominations depending on where the lines are drawn (e.g. is a Christian one who believes in Papal primacy?). -- mattb 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. Therefore let the article take no position at all rather than demanding it assert your theological (or other) definition as fact. There is no good faith reason to object to neutrality here. A.J.A. 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the Christianity talk page, many secular sources explicitly call JWs a Christian denomination. The good faith reason is that Christianity is not fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity doctrine any more than it is fundamentally defined by belief in the Pope. The definitions of Christianity that have been adopted by and large by Wikipedia and most (relatively) unbiased sources I've seen easily include JWs. -- mattb 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand you: it should advocate your definition because your definition is right. Is that it? A.J.A. 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Matt's comment needs clarification. The context suggests that there is a missing "no" as in "we see no reason to suggest..."

Second, assuming that I understood Matt's intended meaning correctly, I object strongly to the assertion "we see (no) reason to suggest that Christianity is fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity doctrine any more than it is fundamentally defined by belief in the Pope." It sure as hell is. Let's not get carried away by an overzealousness for neutrality.

The fact remains that secular sources should not necessarily be preferred over Christian sources in defining Christianity. While I support the Wikipedia solution of classifying JWs as Christians, I think we go too far in saying that there is "no good faith reason" to object. The truth is that, within mainstream (Trinitarian) Christianity, the majority opinion is that JWs and other non-Trinitarians are not mainstream (Trinitarian) Christians and the minority opinion is that they are. Any assertion that JWs are Christians needs to be counter-balanced somewhere with the majority opinion otherwise we risk giving undue weight to the minority opinion.

NB: I admit that this last set of assertions starting with "The truth is..." is based on my personal opinion and I would have a tough time backing it up with sources if challenged. However, I believe that my assertions are based on fact even if I can't support them at this time.

--Richard 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK, maybe what I wrote needs clarification. I assert that "Christianity is more fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity than by a belief in the authority of the Pope". That is to say "Christianity is defined as a belief in one God whose promise to send a Messiah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ". This is the best and most economical definition of Christianity that I can come up with. Everything is layered on top of that core statement like layers on an onion. HOWEVER!!!... the doctrine of the Trinity is far closer to the core of the onion than the doctrine of Papal primacy. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Note that my "core definition of Christianity" does not include the divinity of Jesus Christ which most Christians including (I believe) JWs would insist upon. However, upon reflection, it occurred to me that we need a definition of Christianity that includes not just JWs and Mormons but also various Christian heresies such as the Adoptionists and the Ebionites who, even though they were heretical, were nonetheless Christians in some sense. It is, however, an extreme minority that would consider them to be Christians. When does a Christian heretic stop being a Christian? Where is the line?

--Richard 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A further clarification. I wrote "secular sources should not necessarily be preferred over Christian sources in defining Christianity". I did not mean this to imply that "Christian sources should be preferred over secular sources in defining Christianity". What I intend is that all reliable sources should be represented and give due weight. To rely only on secular sources is as much a mistake as relying only on Christian sources (whatever that means... Catholic? Reformed? Orthodox? JW?)

--Richard 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this assumes that Wikipedia actually should decide who is Christian, which gets us here. Not taking a position is by definition more neutral than taking one. A.J.A. 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this presumes that neutrality is the only goal or even the highest goal. Our job is to describe what a Christian is to those who may have no idea or an incomplete idea of what the term means. If there are different competing definitions, then we should present them all and give one its "due weight". We are not required to lower ourselves to the "lowest common denominator" of neutrality. Our goal is to present the "sum of human knowledge" even when there are differing competing perspectives of that knowledge. The "sum" of human knowledge, not the "lowest common denominator".

Unfortunately, the yes/no nature of the "Category" feature of Wikipedia requires that we take some position on deciding who is Christian. Articles allow for a much more sophisticated and nuanced treatment of complex issues such as this one. We should seek to present these nuances in articles rather than retreating to a black/white yes/no decision.

--Richard 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pay some attention to the issue at hand before you say things. They are demanding that the article lead, not a category, state that they're Christian. Not that we should "present" it as one view among others (which I never objected to), but that we should "present" it as fact, no nuances or sophistication at all. A "black/white yes/no decision" is what they're demanding. A.J.A. 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be gentler in your style of discourse. Yes, I understood that this was not a discussion about categories but I used categories as an extreme example of a situation where a yes/no decision was necessary. The lead could clarify the issue by not saying "JWs are a Christian denomination" or it could just say "JWs are a Christian denomination" with explanation of the opposing view elsewhere in the article or in Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. In any event, it is clear that there are two opposing viewpoints, both of which must be presented in order to conform with NPOV guidelines. The only question is how best to present each viewpoint. Debating whether or not JWs are Christian is outside the scope of Wikipedia editing. Our job is not to decide the debate but to describe it. --Richard 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An intro that says JWs are Christian decides the debate (or attempts to). If you say "X is Y" and then later on say "some people dispute that X is Y", you're saying they believe something that isn't true. That's POV. If you can't see that... here I break off in the interest of gentleness. A.J.A. 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we agree to a point. See my comment dated 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC) below. In my view, we should neither say "JWs are Christian" nor "JWs are NOT Christian". Instead we should say something along the lines of "JWs self-identify as Christians. Some non-JW Christians accept them as such. Others do not." Whether we need to stick this in the lead is a secondary question. --Richard 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. wrote " If you say "X is Y" and then later on say "some people dispute that X is Y", you're saying they believe something that isn't true. That's POV. "

Sorry, I guess you're going to have to club me over the head with the less gentle approach because I can't see it.

Are you saying that we need to take sides on this question? That we cannot say "X is Y" unless it is universally accepted as true? This would argue that we must say "Group X is asserted to be Y by group X however people in other groups B, C & D assert that X is not Y". Is this what you are arguing for? If so, we agree. If not, then please explain. --Richard 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of exaggeration. We're asking that this article be given the same treatment as all other denominational articles on Wikipedia. The Mormonism article calls the LDS church Christian without much beating around the bush. So does the Seventh Day Adventistism article. The Millenialism article calls the subject a belief held by some "Christian denominations". The Nontrinitarian article starts out by defining the subject as a "Christian belief that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity". Other articles label some controversially "Christian" denominations as such, as well as some of the most controversial beliefs of JWs themselves. What's so special about JWs that requires that Wikipedia avoid calling them Christian is beyond me. It has been demonstrated that several reliable and non-partisan sources call JW Christian, and even a Catholic source doesn't take issue with calling non-Trinitarians Christian. I don't see why this article should put such a restrictive fine point on the definition of Christian when neither Wikipedia in general nor other sources do. -- mattb 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad practices on other articles do not justify bad practices here. A.J.A. 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is a limited indicator of how other editors uninvolved in this conflict tend to view this matter. If you wish to change the pages I linked to a more complicated description to avoid an overly broad interpretation of "what is a Christian", be my guest. -- mattb 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But are there reliable sources that say JWs aren't Christian? Seems to me that is what we need to provide verifiable sources for the viewpoint that they aren't. --Richard 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There are reliable sources for the fact that there are different definitions of Christian. That being the case, we cannot explicitly or implicitly side with one over the other, even if you can find someone to cite who expresses his opinion. It's still only opinion. The only issue an appeal to reliable sources can settle easily is whether JWs fit a given definition, but this is not the issue being disputed. A.J.A. 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If we "cannot explicitly or implictly side with one over the other" then the lead to this article needs to indicate that not everybody agrees that JWs are Christian otherwise we have taken an implicit stance. Removing the statement that JWs are a Christian denomination would take an implicit stance on the other side of the issue. Saying something like "JWs self-identify as a Christian denomination although many Christians dispute this self-identification." would probably be the most neutral phrasing.

I happen to disagree with the premise though. We simply cannot be neutral when there is a majority opinion. We have to indicate what that majority opinion is and whether we're talking 60/40 or 90/10. Jumping to "secular sources" and ignoring what the majority of Christians think is just as problematic as relying on "Christian sources" and ignoring the secular sources. The question is... do we know what the majority opinion is? Are there reliable sources that assert that the majority of Christians think one way or the other about this issue? Also you have to differentiate between the majority of the laity, the majority of the clergy and the majority of the scholars.

--Richard 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "self-identify" text has been used before, and it's one viable alternative. My qualms with it are simply that no other Wikipedia article on controversial "Christian" (whatever that means to you) beliefs and groups that I have seen use this phrasing, instead opting for a more inclusive position. If you wish to change some or all of those instances as well, this discussion needs much wider exposure. Also, I think the addition of such a qualification does in itself imply that there isn't sufficient reason to use the simpler text, so I think it's inherently loaded wording.

The lead text should be kept simple, so I propose the footnote solution. After the first sentence we add a footnote that reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christian. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' Nontrinitarian stance."

I suggest this wording since it keeps the lead simple and free of potentially loaded phrasing, but also gets right at the heart of why many people come here and disagree with calling JWs Christians outright. I will not keep going in circles in futile debate, so please seriously consider this compromise or propose some alternative wording. -- mattb 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I really like Matt Britt's proposed compromise. Any chance of forming a consensus around the footnote solution? --Richard 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Text removed by author. George 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

George, the caps aren't necessary. Please consider removing them. -- mattb 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

YEAH, BECAUSE SOME IDIOT MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO SHOUT BACK!  :-O  ;^)

Seriously, George threw down the gauntlet and I have picked it up.

How's this for a reliable referenct to the contrary? Do I need to go find some more?

Here's another one

Trying to find reliable sources on the web is made more difficult by the numerous Christian websites which I am passing up because, although they assert that JWs are not Christians, they don't qualify as reliable sources.

It would be easier to cite books if I had them. Just go to Amazon and search on "Jehovah's Witnesses" and you'll find a bunch of books whose titles seem to indicate a negative characterization of JWs as cults. I can't verify at the moment that they explictly say that JWs aren't Christians as clearly and explictly as is stated in the two sources that I provided above.

And here is a really good "neutral" summary of the two sides from the BBC.

So... if "traditional Christian Churches, for their part, do not regard the movement as a mainstream Christian denomination ", what do they consider it to be? The word that comes up over and over on the web is "cult". NOTE: I don't want to get wrapped up in a discussion of whether or not JW is a "cult" whatever that means. I'm just saying that many Christians consider JW to be a cult. --Richard 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And try this one also.

--Richard 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally something to actually talk about

Richard, thank you. First let me comment as to your first reference. It does not state why JW’s are not Christians. It makes statements like:

“Russell came to the conclusion that Christianity was not the correct way to understand the Bible.”

The article does not source any material to back up that claim. When did Russell calim tha Christianity was not the correct way to understand the bible? It does not give a definition of Christian, which encyclopedias that have been used as source for calling JW’s Christian do. They also have references, the paper does not.

The second source you listed says:

“In the orthodox sense the Witnesses are not Christians…”

Do I even need to point out the lack of strength here?

It also says:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not true Bible Christians. They reject the only authority there is in the world for the Bible, namely the Catholic Church. Russell and Rutherford have no means of knowing that the Bible is God’s word, apart from the Catholic Church. Rutherford actually wrote that Russell found "no Christian denomination teaching what the Bible contains." “

So it is just he said she said. Also, there are other catholic references which refer to JW’s as “sect.” (sect of what?) [1] [2] so until they get their story straight how can we use catholic references?

”The Witnesses contradict almost every basic Christian teaching.”

It only lists three teachings blood, the trinity and immortality of the soul two of which are not unique to Christianity. How many basic teachings of Christianity are there?

The BBC document calls JW’s Christian-based - if it is a rewrite of the former article I wonder if they were pressured to change the wording a little because I looked up the BBC information a few months ago and it said that JW’s were a ‘Christian’ group.

And then there is the old argument that all religions are cults by the very definitions given by those calling JW’s a cult. Cult references are unreliable for the most part as there is a lot of conflicting information out there on what a cult is. But you did find four references. From my replies it should be obvious I read them and then some. George 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite a rant session while I slept. I see that some (read, 'Richard') are still trying to assert that 'Christianity = Trinitarianism'. That is of course, absolute drivel. The grass-roots plain simple truth is that JW core beliefs are inextricably Christian, particularly first-century Christianity, as defined by their interpretation of the 'New Testament'.--Jeffro77 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "absolute drivel, eh?" Gee, when I call other people's ideas "nonsense", I get tagged for being uncivil. I guess everybody has different standards for civility. No problem by me. I'm not so thin-skinned.

However, both George m and Jeffro77 miss the point. I am NOT trying to argue that JWs are not Christians. That is not what I personally believe. However, I do believe that there are many Christians who do argue that JWs are not Christians and, even if they are wrong, you cannot make them go away by arguing that they are wrong. Would you deny the existence of anti-Semitism just because anti-Semites have their heads up their butts? Wikipedia's job is not to arbitrate these kinds of debates but to document them. --Richard 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own analogy quite aptly supports the fact that the article should say they are Christians. Just as it would be inappropriate to pander to those who believe that antiSemitism does not exist simply because biased individuals believe that to be the case, so too, JWs should not be labelled as non-Christian simply on the basis of adherents to different subsets of Christianity.--Jeffro77 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

POV = JW's are true Christians. NPOV= Jw's are Christian. It is that simple! This has been going on way too long!Johanneum 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "that simple" but, yes, it has been going on way too long. (although not in the sense that you are asserting) --Richard 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no set definition of Trinity, so how could it be a guide on what to consider Christian or otherwise. Some groups believe in 3 Persons as 1 God trinity (3 entities that make up one God), and others believe in a 1 God with three expressions (same entity appearing in different forms). How minute are we to get in how Trinitarianism is to be applied to defining what is Christian and what is not? Many Christian groups do not consider the Catholic Chruch as Christian (POV: this claim is normally by people who have a very poor understanding of history). Are we do have this debate on the Catholic talk page too and refer to the same sources sited above to justify removing references of Christianity from the Catholic article? I agree there is no good faith in arguing that JW's should not be labelled as Christian. Fcsuper 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A decision

Should a conclusion be reached? If so what? I vote we put a cave troll near the edit button. George 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave JW's are Christian Religious opinions are varied (contradictory?) and based on emotion as much as fact. They are for these reasons unreliable. That leaves secualr sources which resoundingly affirm the statement. George 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider my previous footnote compromise? While I'd prefer leaving the text as-is, I think my suggestion is viable and it should cut down on the frequency with which we have this debate erupt. -- mattb 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your compromise is an acceptable solution. One thing, someone will have a problem with it eventually and want to change it. We'll be back here going over it agian from the other angle. At one time the lead said "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religion..." which is perfectly acceptable. I don't remember why but that was scrapped. It is correct without getting into the issue of who is right. George 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A footnote could work, provided it's worded right. It has to specify which sense is being used, and disclaim any statement on whether JWs actually do follow the New Testament. A.J.A. 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

JWs do follow the New Testament as they interpret it, so no such disclaimer is required there. It is the inherent right of any religious group to apply their own interpretations.--Jeffro77 07:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on my proposed wording above? In case you missed it I'll copy it here:

The lead text should be kept simple, so I propose the footnote solution. After the first sentence we add a footnote that reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christian. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance."

Is this wording acceptable? If not, could you propose some changes you think everyone could live with? Let's come to a compromise. -- mattb 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe

According to their self-identification. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance; this article endorses neither view.

A.J.A. 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're proposing the same wording, though I'd prefer to use mine since yours contains a sentence fragment and a self-reference ("this article"). It's not necessary to tell the reader what this article does and doesn't endorse when they should be able to ascertain that from the article itself. This is a purely stylistic qualm, though. -- mattb 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to those trying to resolve this, the suggestions are a bit convoluted. It does not seem appropriate to state JW's views as fact or anyone else's. We are describing their beliefs. The proper description for their beliefs is that they are Christian, not that someone doesn't feel they are Christian. The wording as it stands is most correct. We could easily have this argument on the Catholic article since there's plenty of sources written by people that don't feel the Catholic faith is Christian either. The move to describe JW's as anything but Christian is seeded in bigotry that particular Christian groups feel towards other Christian groups. Fcsuper 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, JWs are Christians based on the basic secular definition of the word (people who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe he was the Messiah). This is a secular source. While it may be appropriate to note somewhere in the article that some religious groups dispute JWs' status as Christians, such does not belong in the lead, nor is a footnote required to pander to such groups.--Jeffro77 07:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"people who follow the teachings of Jesus" -- That's the issue, isn't? And Wikipedia does not take sides, no matter how desperately you may want it to take yours. A.J.A. 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, any religion is going to have its own interpretations. And I am being objective and applying a secular definition, not promoting 'my side' in the way you suggest. Since I'm not a JW, the implication is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're playing games. Hiding an endorsement in your "secular" definition (that, far being being secular, is a theological statement) will not change the nature of what is being done. The article shouldn't call JWs Christian without qualification precisely because you understand (and others will understand) that to mean they follow the teachings of Jesus. A.J.A. 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., it appears it is you who are playing games and projecting your own actions on to others. This has much more do to with bigotry and over simplification employed by dumbing down your view of the opposing arguement to "anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus". These wikipedia articles cannot take sides, as you stated. In part, this means there must be the harsh avoidance of bigotry. Particular Christian groups getting finicky about how the word "Christian" is applied to other Christian groups is bigotry. No one owns the word. One group doesn't have the right to tell another group, "Hey, you aren't Christian because we've come up for this criteria that specifically excludes you!" As stated above, with the narrow definition many employ for the word "Christian", the Catholic Church itself is specifically excluded. In historical context, this is a crazy position, but there are many out their that firmly believe hold to that bigotry too. I cannot support the prejudice that you are trying to promote. Fcsuper 07:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper is correct. It was pointed out in this psuedo-debate long ago that no 'disclaimer' is required in the lead for justifying the statement that JWs are Christians. It was also pointed out long ago that the 'Controversy' section should include a statement that other Christian religions object to calling JWs Christians, and that is already present in the article. Anything beyond that is POV.--Jeffro77 08:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be adviced of WP:NPA. A.J.A. 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole dispute appears nonsensical to me from an academic perspective.

The fact is everyone's religious disposition is self-declared, and no all-knowing all-powerful supernatural being has settled the dispute of who is true to their claim and who is not. Hence the question of who is Christian is entirely subjective.

Incorrect. A person (or group) is Christian if they believe that Jesus was the Christ and they believe that they are following his teachings. Whether Jesus is the Christ is subjective, but whether those persons believe it to be true is not subjective. People who like chocolate inherently believe that chocolate is nice. Whether chocolate actually is nice is subjective, but the fact that those people believe chocolate is nice is indisputable.--Jeffro77 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

What makes it subjective is precisely what you point out. Individual's know what they believe, but you and I have only their word for what they believe, and people do not always express themselves accurately, or even honestly. Even Watchtower doctrine points this out, for whatever that's worth. Objectivity would have academic editors point out what the individual/religion professes as its belief because this is verifiable.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is the organization that promotes those beliefs rather than merely individuals, and those beliefs are well documented.--Jeffro77 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Yes. This is what I said. Quote, "Objectivity would have academic editors point out what the individual/religion professes as its belief because this is verifiable." We can point objectively to claims made by individuals or organizations. This is the point.

-- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I have a library full of JW and non-JW journal articles, books, et al from a wide spectrum of sources. Among these I can find statements that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, and I can find sources stating Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. I can find the same thing for every other religion, too. This is because at some point in time every single religion professing its adherents as "Christian" has itself been disputed as Christian by other religionists holding a different view.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I consider myself Christian. I do not consider myself Christian because of my religions affiliation. I consider myself Christian because I have accepted Christ Jesus as my savior and have determined to follow him as best I know how. If my confession here is honest then who can condemn my statement a lie unless they can read my heart, and who here can read a person’s heart?

It is idiotic for a person to assert a purely subjective theological perspective as the/a determining factor in who is Christian and who is not. Were this the litmus test then no religion could lay claim to being "Christian" because there are other religious perspectives that would disagree with the claim.

My recommendation is to let religionists claim whatever they want about their religion. Readers can decide what they think of the claim based on verified material provided in the article, including the veracity of the sources. This is how encyclopedic material should be presented.

--Marvin Shilmer 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Which gets us nowhere. Bring it down to the specific wording you want in the article. A.J.A. 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A:

Articulation and sharing of reasoning is essential to work through disagreements. It provides for measuring veracity and objectivity. It leads to consensus.

In response to your request, I would begin the article with:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religion professing Christianity. It has origins in the United States with the 19th Century Millerite and Bible Student movements…”

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That wording is unsuitable. The wording as it currently stands in the article is appropriate... unless we are going to go to every single article about a religion "professing Christianity" and change all of those too.--Jeffro77 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current consensus wording is most correct and most neutral from amongst the options presented. Fcsuper 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Consulting dictionaries and encyclopedias

Jeffro77:

Then maybe we should follow the lead of highly regarded encylopedia content (e.g., Brittanica and/or Funk and Wagnalls) and characterize Jehovah's Witnesses as either a millennialist sect or a Christian sect.

We are way too sensitive when we think an accurate presentation in one article should influence presentations in other articles, as though this is some sort of game keeping score. For encyclopedic content accuracy, veracity and verification is everything. I cannot verify that the religion Jehovah's Witnesses is Christian. On that point I only have my opinion, as does everyone else. But regardless of my opinion, we can verify assertion made by any religion, including by the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This assertion is that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, as a religion. But this is a professed status and not a verified status. The same is true of other religion's too. But here we are addressing the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and not other religions. I am not ready to compromise accuracy here because of issues in other articles. Are you?

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying it is a 'professed status' is ponderous reasoning. Their beliefs are verifiably Christian. If they said 'we are Christian' but were really worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the article should not say they are Christian. Because they believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of God, and they follow his teachings as they understand them, they are indisputably a Christian religion, regardless of extraneous definitions imposed by other groups, or whether their beliefs are wrong. As previously stated, if other religious groups contend that JWs are not Christiain, that belongs in the controversy section, where it already is.--Jeffro77 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

What do you mean by “verifiably Christian”? Since theology is purely interpretive then whose interpretive “verification” are you using here, your own?

Resolving the issue in 3 simple steps. 1. Pick up a dictionary. 2. Look up 'Christian'. 3. Stop applying your own bias.--Jeffro77 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Dictionaries do not resolve this issue because of what I already wrote; theology is interpretive.

To illustrate, the undisputed preeminent dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines the noun “Christian” as “One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.” So whose interpretation of “the religion of Christ” are we going to apply? Whose?

I cannot respond to your specific query because I don't have the Oxford English Dictionary. If I did have that specific reference work, I would consult the definition of "Christianity" as given in that work. Without that information, your argument doesn't really have a context. But it is toying with semantics, because the basic definition of Christianity is a person who believes in Jesus as Christ; equating it with Trinitarianism is a theological issue, and outside of the scope of this discussion.--Jeffro77 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As for bias, I have no problems with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian,” or with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity,” or with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses are professed Christian,” or anything of the like. Hence I have no particular bias for either side grinding axes on this issue. However, from a strictly academic perspective, I have pointed out the subjectivity of claiming any religion (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) is Christian, and I have pointed out the objectivity of stating what any religion (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) professes. We can absolutely verify the objective. We cannot absolutely verify the subjective.

You failed to comment on my recommendation of applying the terminology used by the Watchtower organization's sociologist of choice, Dr. Rodney Stark. He applies the term "Christian sect" to Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Watchtower organization sees merit in this man's perspectives then why should you object? -- Marvin Shilmer 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is on which you base your allegation that Rodney Stark is "the Watchtower organization's sociologist of choice", so there was nothing to respond to. It is strange that you would object to calling them "Christian", and at the same time, be happy to call them a "Christian sect"; it suggests a 'compromise' only in the sense of promoting a biased view that rightly belongs in the controversy section, not the lead.--Jeffro77 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

If we accept the basic definition of Christian is “one who believes in Jesus as Christ” then we must reject the Watchtower organization’s voluminous instances where it denies this usage as appropriate. If we apply your preferred usage then you would have to believe the Watchtower should use (not just quote, but apply itself) terms such as “gay Christians”. Are you okay with this? If not it is probably because of a theological dispute, which only underscores what I wrote earlier about the subjective nature of the usage “Christian”. Whose theology are you going to apply? Whose?

Your repeated use of the superfluous question, "Whose?" has grown tiresome. The preceding question is also superfluous, becuase you are attempting to apply the JWs theological definition of Christian with the secular definition used in the article.--Jeffro77 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

You missed/avoided the point. In this case asking 'whose theology' is asking 'whose authority'. Editors have a duty to express the authority of what they write, particularly for works purported as academic, such as encyclopedic content. I might add that, in the presence of a response, failure to answer the actual, and legitimate, question asked is telling in its own right.

It is not error to have Watchtower usage impinge the article in question since Watchtower usage is a product of Watchtower doctrine, and the article is designed to address Watchtower doctrine. If you get around to answering the question asked, I am still interested in your disclosure.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Whose authority?" Secular definition. And along that line, please provide the defintion for "Christianity" as given in the Oxford Dictionary in order to back up your previously stated defintion of "Christian" as given in that work. Though the article is about Watchtower doctrine, the article (especially the lead) generally should not be written from that perspective (unless a particular section explicitly states that it is written from the perspective of JW beliefs).--Jeffro77 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Secular definition does not determing "the religion of Christ". Hence even the Oxford English Dictionary is an insufficient authority for determining whether a religions is in fact Christian. I already quoted the OED for you. I suggest you read what you respond to. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may like to read what you respond to. You said: "The OED defines the noun “Christian” as “One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.”" As that definition refers to "Christianity", I indicated that the OED's definition of that separate word should be given. Apology accepted in advance.--Jeffro77 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

Christianity:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM.

2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.

2b. with pl. A Christian religious system.

3. State or fact of being a Christian; Christian condition or quality; Christian spirit or character.

The OED entry for Christian is the determining element for its entry on Christianity. Hence I already provided the pertinent OED entry (suffix “ity” et al). The terms are not seperate. The entry is the only thing seperate. Consult your literary guide under "suffix".

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Marvin, if your definitions extracted from the OED are accurately reproduced (and I trust that they are), I think it's time to abandon the OED as being of any value in this discussion. (sorry but it's true) "Christian" is defined as "believes or professes the religion of Christ" or "an adherent of Christianity" and "Christianity" is defined as "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles" or "being a Christian". That part of the definition which is not tautological sheds no light on our debate because it doesn't tell us what "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles" is. We have no way of telling whether Catholics, Protestants, Mormons or JWs meet this definition or not.

However, this is not the OED's fault. We have no way of finding a single authoritative source that defines Christianity because Christianity is, in its very nature, a fractious community with diverse beliefs. We can really only make comments about majority and minority opinions. I would argue that JWs are a minority opinion because most of Christianity would question their Christianity on the basis of their non-Trinitarianism. Nonetheless, it is true that JWs not only claim to be Christians, they claim to be the only true Christians. All of this needs to be presented to the reader in order to adopt a truly NPOV perspective.

--Richard 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

What you write is what I have been telling editors. As I said early on to Jeffro77, "Dictionaries do not resolve this issue because of what I already wrote; theology is interpretive." I illustrated this by use of the preeminent English Dictionary, the OED. You have isolated and elucidated the same point I have.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Consulting peer-reviewed articles

You point out that equating Trinitarianism with Christianity is a theological issue, and I agree. However it is equally a theological issue to determine what it means to “believe in Jesus as Christ”.

The scope of this article is specifically on one religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

When we examine vetted articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses we seldom find usage stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This is not because the writers are suggesting Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. Rather, the writers (often sociologists) understand when addressing a specific religion it is better to apply a term tailored to fit that religion without making broad characterizations.

Hence, in different peer reviewed articles specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses find:

- Dr. Christine King apply the term “Christian sect”. (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 14 (1979), 21 1-34)

- Drs Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone apply the term “Christian Sect”. (Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997)

- Drs Pauline Cote and James Richardson apply the term “milliarian group”. (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2001)

- Dr. Joseph Zygmunt applies the term “chiliastic”. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75, No. 6, May, 1970)

- Dr. Theodore W. Sprague applies the term “sect”. (Social Forces, Vol. 21, No. 3, Mar., 1943)

- Dr. J. R. Hooker applies the term “fundamentalist sect”. (Journal of African History, Vol. I, 1965)

Again, all these are vetted sources.

I have no heartburn over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, or over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as professed Christian. But I do admit that the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian” is a subjective statement whereas the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses professed Christianity” is objective.

Regarding authors cited above, it is perhaps noteworthy that the Watchtower organization frequently cites King and Stark as authoritative sources addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You are apparently unaware of the Watchtower organization’s use and quotation from Dr. Stark in some of its video presentations. At one time the Watchtower had a clip on its Public Information web site of Dr. Stark in a defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But surely you are aware of the Watchtower organization’s many usages of Dr. King as an authoritative source in respect to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

-- Marvin Shilmer 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

JWs as a Christian sect or cult

Editors of encyclopedic content must set aside their own opinion and ask what content can be verified objectively. Objective information is educational whereas opinion is little more than spin.

Here is a suggestion: Since the Watchtower organization uses sociologist Rodney Stark why not use the term he applies towards Jehovah’s Witnesses. Stark states Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect. Why not use the terminology used by the Watchtower organization’s favored sociologist?

Presenting Jehovah's Witnesses as professed Christians is verifiable by objective means. Saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is entirely subjective based on whose set of theological interpretations one wants to apply.

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May I interject? The reason 'sect' is avoided here is because it carries in the minds of many passionate readers a negative power. Stark does not intend it to be negative and uses it as an academic term. Many readers and editors here are not academic so we take this into consideration. You also mention that JW's don't think gays can be Christian, while that is true they also don't think Catholics are actually Christians because of their doctrines. At issue is not how JW's view other religions but how they view themselves and how they are categorized by academics. George 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George M:

Encyclopedic presentation cannot stoop to avoiding applicable and correct terms because ignorant readers do not understand the usage? Encyclopedic content intends to educate the ignorant, not keep them in the dark by nurturing their ignorance.

I will take that statement as your acknowledgement that it is entirely appropriate for the article to state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.--Jeffro77 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

We are all free to take whatever language however we want. But good academics demands we place meaning within the bounds of context and express statements.

Personally I have no problem stating Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian religion, because this is what I believe. But I have also yielded that from an academic perspective such a statement is not objective, and is less precise than presenting what the religion professes. We can verify what a religion claims. We cannot verify what a religion is when there is no finite and unambiguous authority to substantiate the claim. Hence the objective position is to present what the religion professes rather than what it is.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should the lack of academics among readers and/or editors influence what is purported as an academic work, namely an encyclopedia?

Good encyclopedic content presents information that can be verified. Hence I have edited the introduction according to your very words here because how a religion is acknowledged by academics and how a religion views itself are both important. What I have penned is not only verifiable; it is verified.

-- Marvin Shilmer 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your argument is fine except that you're missing the point. We absolutely should educate lay people as to the terms used by experts and academics. However, the problem here is not that the lay people don't know what "sect" means. The problem is that "sect" has negative connotations for lay people that it may not carry for academicians and theologians. (I say "may not" because I suspect that there are theologians who use the word "sect" in a derogatory fashion).

JWs have been called a "Christian sect" or a "cult". Both can be considered derogatory and therefore should be avoided.

--Richard 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

The point is that anyone who believes “sect” connotes something negative does not in fact “know what ‘sect’ means” because sect does not connote anything negative.

The preeminent English dictionary is the Oxford English. Nowhere does it suggest a negative connotation to the term “sect”. This does not mean the term—or any other term—cannot be used in a derogatory way. It only means the term is not recognized as negative, or connoting anything negative.

Hence the problem you say exists is nonexistent except for individuals who choose to use the term—or any other term—in a derogatory way. Furthermore, since in the face of ignorance anything “can be considered derogatory” this is no basis to refrain from accurate and proper usage. So what are we talking about doing, nurturing ignorance?

-- Marvin Shilmer 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... I have to confess that "ignorant" probably refers to me in many situations including this one. I keep trying to keep up with people who know more about religion, Christianity and JWs than I do. I can only hope that I have enough wisdom to duck out when the water gets too deep for me.

That said... after reading the above, I was ready to accept Marvin's definition of sect but I figured I'd look around with Google first. For now, I think it's useful to focus only on what Wikipedia has to say about sect and cult. By Wikipedia's definitions, both "cult" and "sect" apply to JWs. And by Wikipedia's definitions have been considered to be pejorative. So, what to do? Do we go by the book and say "Hey, if the shoe fits..." or do we avoid using a word that has pejorative connotations?

I'm at a loss for a way forward. Moreover, I will comment that, at the top of this Talk Page page, this discussion appears to have been held at least once already under the section heading "Sect or religious denomination?". I haven't read the full discussion yet but we should probably all take a breather and read it before going over ground that has been covered already.

--Richard 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

I have already made an attempt to move things forward by an edit I made earlier today to the article's introduction. Take a look and comment. Your objectivity is appreciated.

-- Marvin Shilmer 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Any large volume on the history of Christianity will include some brief mention of Jehovah's Witnesses. Theologically, I disagree with many doctrines that Witnesses teach (some of which are denials of what I believe to be essential Christian doctrine). Having said that, I recognize that other movements which I also believe to have denied essential doctrine are considered to be part of the Christian movement: the Arians of the 4th century, Sabellianism and the Socinians to name a few. Evangelical theologian James White has been quoted as saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian Church because it denies what he feels is essential doctrine. Many other Evangelicals (through probably a minority) hold similar views. Wikipedia cannot become a place where our theological views decide if a particular self-professed Christian denomination is really Christian or not. Rather, we should accept their self-designation at face value and in the article note any necessary controversy. That is the neutral course we should take. Dtbrown 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brown has stated above, "Rather, we should accept their self-designation at face value and in the article note any necessary controversy. That is the neutral course we should take. Dtbrown 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)" Mr. Brown's use of "neutral" is questionable in that it is "neutral" because someone says it's neutral. In this case it could be argued that Jehovah's Witnesses should accept the self-designation of those who leave the organization that they remain Christians and should accept the neutrality of their claim. Francois7 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I think a number of us could agree with this. The question is where should the "controversy" be noted. As a footnote to the sentence "JWs are a Christian organization", later in the body of this article or not at all in this article but in a separate article Criticism of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The idea that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church is discussed in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article. BTW, can you give me a citation for the comment by James White? It would be useful to include in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article.

The proposed compromise was to put it in a footnote to the lead sentence but that has met with significant opposition and so we are searching for an alternate compromise.

--Richard 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholars who see JWs as not being Christian

The unnecessary reference in the lead states: "Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance." Are there any scholars who deny that JWs are Christians who are also not basing their stance on their own religious views??--Jeffro77 10:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that with Christian scholars in mind. I don't think their views can be discounted simply because they are following their own idea of what defines Christianity, since everybody has their own definition of Christianity. Again, it's an attempt at a compromise, not a perfect solution for everybody. If you have an alternate wording to propose, by all means do so. -- mattb 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the scholars are "adherents to other Christian denominations", then mentioning those scholars is redundant, ergo: "Some adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance."--Jeffro77 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

Theological scholars who deny Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian are careful to express the bases of the claim. The only ones I've read making this denial have all expressly applied an orthodox definition to Christianity. Scholars know and understand that narrowing a definition necessarily purges what would qualify under a broader usage. But these scholars are writing for theological purposes and not pure academic purposes. Hence why they apply the narrower meanings they apply, when they apply them. I'll add that these same scholars also are careful to express whatever is the self-declared status of a religion. This is the most objective claim because it is verifiable without exception.

Non-theological scholars, such as sociologists, are trained to avoid transposing theological biases onto their presentations. Instead they apply terms tailored to whatever particular group they address, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Because objectivity is a must for a social scientist to maintain credibility, they write what is verifiable rather than what is subjective.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, it is invalid and inappropriate to insert only references that support a particular view when they are not the only impartial view - POV!--Jeffro77 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial retraction: on re-reading the reference that was there, it was slightly more balanced than I first noted. However it unecessarily employs the loaded term 'sect' (the issue is whether they're Christian, not whether they're a sect), which will be misinterpreted by many readers.--Jeffro77 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, under any neutral and broad catagorization of world religions, JW's are always listed as Christian and are usually lumped in with the Seventh Day Adventists and similar groups. Fcsuper 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

I provided three references. One to back your assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered Christian. (Stark et al) One to back your assertion that person’s of other faiths have a very different perspective. (King). And one the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has published itself. This latter reference helps establish what “expert” perspectives the religious organization accepts as valid.

The Watchtower quoting a source does not mean that they necessarily accept it as valid.--Jeffro77 08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

If you read the reference you will see the Watchtower organization quoted the “experts” in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and this is why the Awake journal included the statements of the said “experts”. Hence your statement is nonsensical. The Watchtower organization cited the statements because they appreciated the statements. Look it up. Read it for yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't ignore the context. The Watchtower regarded the decision favourable in that their religion was approved as a "religious body". It does not automatically mean that the Watchtower agrees with everything those experts say. Since JW publications elsewhere state that they are not a sect, they obviously don't agree with that part of what was said by the experts. Of course they were willing to accept that compromise on paper to be allowed to continue their activities in Turkey, but that doesn't mean they completely agree with the wording.--Jeffro77 08:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jeff here: The Watchtower regarded the decision favourable in that their religion was approved as a "religious body". It does not automatically mean that the Watchtower agrees with everything those experts say.George 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: The context of the usage (by me) was/is only to demonstrate the Watchtower organization recognizes, acknowledges and has no problem whatsoever publishing characterizations of "experts" that Jehovah's Witnesses are "Neo-Christian" and a "new Christian sect". By the way, a glaring ommission/oversight by both you and Jeffro77 is the fact that the Watchtower Society chose to publish the characterizations as coming from experts; it did not have to do that. But it did.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've ignored the context. They called them "experts" in contrast with the other religious groups that would not acknowledge them as Christian at all. Of course they would defer to the most favourable opinion of those available.--Jeffro77 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What are you talking about? The Watchtower did not have to refer to anyone as an expert; but it did, didn't it. This was the Watchtower's choice; not mine. Also, if you are interested in context, if you want to keep harping on this why not start relating your complaint to what I have actually presented rather suggesting I have contextually misrepresented something I never presented in the first place.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

I have not ignored the context. You have. And, thanks for highlighting the reason for my injection of the material, despite you apparently not realizing it.

The context is of a particular legal ruling. The publication quoted that ruling. Stating outright that they disagree with that ruling would be shooting themselves in the foot. However, the religion certainly doesn't accept a characterisation of "Neo-Christianity" because they state outright elsewhere that (they believe) they are a 'restoration of first-centure Christianity'. Obviously they don't really agree with both contradictory statements.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The context you suggest is not the only context of the article, though it happens to be the only context you want anyone to recognize. The context of my usage was only to demonstrate the Watchtower organization knows experts have the opinion they do and they have no problem whatsoever publishing that opinion when doing so is in its better interest. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The context of my usage was the recognition and publication of the expert opinion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are "Neo-Christianity" and can be considered a “new Christian sect”. If the Watchtower organization has no problems publishing this far and wide to its benefit then why on earth should anyone here have a problem furthering the Watchtower organization’s own recognition of the opinion? Please remember that encyclopedic content is not to publish spin. It is to publish factual information without making assertions of conclusion. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole point in a discussion such as this is to see where the compromise is for sake of moving forward. The Watchtower organization demonstrated it has no problem with pointing to “experts” when those experts characterize Jehovah’s Witnesses as “Neo-Christianity” who “can be considered as a new Christian sect”. If the very organization you and I are discussing has no problem publishing this “expert” opinion then why on earth should either of us (or anyone else!) have a problem publishing the same opinion from the same experts by quoting the Watchtower organization’s own literature?

As things stand your end note (probably edited by now) makes statements but you have failed to provide any reference material in support of these statements. Hence your end notes stand as nothing more the pure editorial; hence serve no academic purpose. When I added reference material supporting both statements and also added statements the Watchtower organization saw fit to publish you turned around and deleted all reference material except that in support of your favored position. Pardon me in advance for pointing out how this smacks of extremism, bias to be more precise. We should not let our personal opinions impeded academic excellence. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm soon going overseas for 3 months. If suitable references are put in and everyone can agree while I'm away, great. A break from the article will do me good, and if it needs cleaning when I'm back, I'll take a fresh look.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Take a look at my recent edit of the introduction. It provides factual statements and avoids making assertions. 1) It states Jehovah’s Witnesses is a religion. 2) It recognizes the declaration of Christianity. 3) It acknowledges contemporary sources characterizing the religion as i) a Christian denomination, ii) anti-Christian, and iii) Jehovah’s Witnesses recognition of contemporary views. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are taking a reference from the Watchtower quoting a single source from an Istanbul university, and from there stating in the article that experts worldwide regard them as a "Christian sect". That is simply unfactual.--Jeffro77 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What are you talking about? The Watchtower is the source who published in over 100 languages and distribute worldwide what it published as the work of “experts” in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses; not me. Not only that, but there is more than one reference verifying the assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize they are viewed as a sect. So what is the problem? Why do you keep editing this when the reference material expressly verifies the associated statement? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, what JW's believe about their beliefs isn't up for debate. We are not discussing how JW's view themselves. We are only describing them as they are. JW's do have beliefs about what they believe. It's pointless to get into those because that is all just opinion. We have a responsibility to not list JW's opinions about themselves as fact, just was we cannot list others' opinions about them as fact. Describing the verifiable is our goal here. BTW, sourcing an opinion doesn't make it verifiable. For example, some people on this planet believe the world is flat and can be sourced saying so. But listing the world's shape as flat in a wikipedia article based on those sources would be very foolish. Fcsuper 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the future, if you do not want editors to provide reference material in support of what you write then I recommend you refrain from writing without providing references/validation yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore as Christian, could be given copious references, but it is self-evident from their basic beliefs.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper:

What you write is true, and I have pointed it our myself. The problem with it is the published works where this occurs are addressing a broad subject and not a narrow subject. The article at issue here (i.e., the Wiki page on Jehovah’s Witnesses) is a narrow subject addressing specifically one religion. Hence the need to be as specific as possible regarding aspects of this religion. By the way, I have provided a reference to the broad use analysis usage in support of Jeffro77’s statement about Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christianity. Hence I fail to understand how your comments contribute.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a sect? There is no context for that word in a serious discussion about how any religion is being described. It is a word without any value whatsoever because it means so many things to so many different people. Even someone who uses that word freely ends up applying differently each time they attempt to use it. It is pretty much meaningless in a neutral description. It's equivalent to saying "JW's are Christain whatchamacallits." Can we close this discussion now? It seems pointless and circular. Fcsuper 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article "Jehovah"

There is an editor called A.J.A who keeps redirecting the article called Jehovah into the article Tetragrammaton and the Yahweh article without discussion. what can I do? Ice9Tea 04:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go over and take a look but, in general, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution.

BTW, the same editor has been insisting that a Christian is one who adheres to Christianity.

--Richard 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People related to Jehovah's Witnesses

Who are JW and who are former JW? What is the source of the information and can we really trust it in all cases? How should the categories be organized? If somebody really is a Witness, I think they fit in the category Jehovah's Witnesses people. But how should the category Former Jehovah's Witnesses be made up? Personally I think that someone who have only been raised a Witness by one parent for a period, actually do not belong to either category. To be a former JW, I think that a person must clearly have considered himself or herself a JW and not just have had some touch of the religion in their lifetime. Summer Song 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you go by the JW definition, one would have had to be baptized to have ever been a Jehovah's Witness. Some people identify as JWs or former JWs but were never baptized. However, I think self-identification is good enough in most cases, provided the person actually did have some significant affiliation with Witnesses. -- mattb 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would highly question that people like Gregg Alexander, Ja Rule, Peter André etc. should be listed as former JW. If they was only influented in parts of their childhood, then sliding away when getting older, I hardly call them former JW. And I would like to ask how much they self-identify as such. I think that at least somebody should have been Witnesses by a personal decision and had a minimum of activity in the religion for being identified as real members. Summer Song 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can always be bold and remove that information from the respective articles if it's not well-sourced. If someone wants to re-add it, perhaps a reliable source showing that they themselves (not just their parents) were JWs at one point, or at least considered themselves to be. -- mattb 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems problematic if some are called former JW if they had no connection to the religion other that their parents tried raising them. I bet that so is not only the case with JW. If somebody are raised in a religion, but never became really devout, I think that they will not state themselves as former members. I think that they will say that they were just raised. Anyway, I agree that the info in those article and categories needs some more references in many cases. Summer Song 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are Jehovahs and former members?

THINGS TO REMEMBER WHO IS CHRISTIAN, WHO IS NOT:

Well, not christian, of course, keep in mind, if a christian group claims:

1. Jesus is Angel, 2. Not God and Man (dualism vs monothelism read St. Ambrose & John Christendom & St. Augustus, all these saints come from this periodhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm ) 3. Not born of a Virgin

IF THESE THINGS are what some "christian" groups adhere to, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. They may think they are, because of twisted thinking, but they are not. Keep in mind, Christianity comes in the succession of apostles and the wisdom they brought, not thru some prophit Smith or whoever who is detached from Bible or the Apostles for 20 centuries.

Who wrote the above drivel? For one thing, it's not related to this subheading. For another, it's subjective. Whoever wrote it needs to review the definition of the word 'Christian'.--Jeffro77 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All:

It is inappropriate for an editor here to determine who is a Jehovah's Witness, who is not a Jehovah's Witness or who is a former Jehovah's Witness. Everyone self-declares their religious preference. Everyone. To dispute a person's religious preference is deny an inalienable right. No developed society or academic work would do this.

This does not mean a religious organization acknowledges a person's religious declaration. There are plenty of people who self-declare a religious preference whose status the religious organization would be unwilling to acknowledge. Which brings me to a crux of this subject: status or profession. We each profess whatever religion we prefer, whereas it is up to a religious organization to determine if it extends any status to us in the way of an acknowledgement. If editors decide religious acknowledgement is the determining factor in who is, or was, or was never a Whatever, then editing will bog down to a stand still. Furthermore, if any one of us expects other individual's to respect our profession of faith or religious preference then we have to extend the same respect in return.

-- Marvin Shilmer 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree to all that but I don't think we are deciding on the religious affiliation of individuals OR EVEN the religious affiliation of religious organizations.

On re-reading the above discussion, I see that it did start with a discussion of whether certain individuals should be classified as JWs. I think we should rely on the self-profession of the individuals in question as well as the official pronouncements of the religious organization (in this case, the Watchtower Society). --Richard 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When an individual's religious status is at issue then of course for valid informational purposes we should rely on the individual's self-declaration as well as prounouncement by the Watchtower organization. But this latter is only a source for an individual's status on rare occasions. The rest of the time we have only self-declaration by individuals, and in free societies we respect self-declaration of religious affiliation/preference.

As a note of caution, it would be inappropriate for an editor to assert the Watchtower organization does not acknowledge an individual as a Jehovah's Witness based on the editor's interpretation of Watchtower policy/doctrine. Either the Watchtower organization has disavowed an individual as a Jehovah's Witness or it has not. Anything else is speculation.

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Our job is to describe organizations such as JW/Watchtower as they are perceived and characterized in "the real world". The primary problem that I have had with the "JWs are/are not Christian" debate is the appeal to "secular sources" as the authoritative arbiters of what is ultimately a theological question. What makes a secular source the authoritative arbiter of a theological question? I don't think we should "decide" whether or not JWs are Christian. However, to ignore the debate as if it didn't exist is equally bad. --Richard 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

Encyclopedic content is neither secular nor spiritual. Rather, it presents extensive information on all branches of knowledge.

From a spiritual perspective the question of JW, non-JW or ex-JW is entirely subjective. Because theology is as varied as there are people then it is possible the same individual could be theologically argued a JW or a non-JW or an ex-JW depending on whose theology you use.

From a secular perspective it is also subjective because it tends to accept self-declaration and self-declaration is nothing more than an individual expression, which may or may not be accepted generally. That is, from a pure secular perspective an individual is generally accepted as they present themselves religiously. But non-religious individuals will tend to accept or reject a self-declared religious affiliation if the individual fails to live up to that particular non-religious person’s impression of what that religion represents or does not represent.

Hence it is more important for an encyclopedic presentation to include the self-declarations (of individuals or organizations) whether anyone agrees with it or not, because this is part of the information about that person or religion.

Objectivity demands that we take a non-theological, non-religious and non-secular position and present whatever information is verifiable for what it is. In this instance it would result in a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess themselves as Christian. The body of the article would then express verified information about this religion and affiliates. Readers can then determine for themselves whether the Christian profession is valid or not, which is as it should be.

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have leapt from discussion of individual affiliations to whether or not JWs are Christian. There are marked differences between the two situations. Most notably, unlike the hypothetical situation that I described in which an individual professes to be a JW but Watchtower officially declares him/her not to be one, there is no official body which can make a definitive pronouncement that JWs as a religious belief are or are not Christian. Because of this, neither can we make a definitive judgment on this question... that is, we can neither say that JWs ARE or ARE NOT Christian.

We can say that JWs consider themselves (self-identify) as Christian. We can (and should) also say that certain Christian organizations do not consider JWs Christians but such statements must be based on verifiable statements by reliable sources. I found a few when George m issued an open challenge. The most solid such statement was by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod although I also found a number of similar statements from seemingly reliable Catholic sources. It has been claimed by Matt Britt that there is a Catholic source that considers JWs to be Christian. I haven't seen it but, even if it is valid, it only indicates that there is disagreement within the Catholic Church regarding the status of JWs. Wouldn't be the first time that there were differing opinions within the Catholic Church.

My point is that we must present both sides of the picture - the claim of JWs that they are Christian and the claims of authoritative non-JW sources (both secular and religous) that JWs are or are not Christian.

--Richard 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

Please note topic of whether the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is Christian is discussed further up this page, in an entirely different section. This section is discussing the disposition of individuals as to whether they are JW, non-JW or ex-JW. Aspects of these two discussions somewhat overlap, but as you note yourself they are distinctive. My previous reply was in the context of characterizing individuals.

As for the individual’s professed religious affiliation, though the Watchtower organization is free to acknowledge or disavow whomever it pleases this is an impractical means of editors here to characterize—or in anyways identify—who is JW, non-JW or ex-JW because except for rare instances the Watchtower organization is not going to stipulate whom it acknowledges and whom it disavows.

As for presenting “both sides,” you’re preaching to the choir if you mean present verifiable information from as many legitimate sources as editors choose to garner. Even opinions based on private perspective is information, and encyclopedic content is all about assembling and presenting information.

-- Marvin Shilmer 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this was already brought up and I missed it, but I think some caution should be exercised in the (probably rare) case that a disfellowshipped person still identifies themself as a JW. In that case I think we should avoid directly calling them anything and use phrasing like "they identify as XYZ". Disfellowshipping is one of those direct circumstances where the powers that be state that a person is no longer a JW. Self-identification rights or not, it's worth noting if a person is not considered a JW by other JWs. Really though, I don't think this issue will come up often. -- mattb 16:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: As you say, and I agree, the example you pose is possible but rare. Far more likely are the following scenarios:

1. An individual self-declaring (as JW) who is from a Watchtower perspective a practicing JW. (The Watchtower, December 1, 2001 p. 10)

2. An individual self-declaring (as JW) who is from a Watchtower perspective a non-practicing JW who is neither disfellowshipped nor disassociated. (The Watchtower, December 1, 2001 p. 10)

In both scenarios the individual is still considered part of the congregation despite 1) personal divergence a practicing JW may hold or 2) personal reasons the non-practicing JW has for his or her inactivity with the local congregation of JWs. (Ref: Our Kingdom Ministry, February 2002 p. 5) -- Marvin Shilmer 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The JW are considered to be a non-christian cult by almost all of Christianity but they consider themselves to be Christian. In my oppinion we should say in the article that it is disputed if they are christian or not. What do you think? Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this already. It is already noted in the Controversy section.--Jeffro77 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead states that they are a 'Christian denomination'. A JW member may be able to help here, but from what I understand JW consider themselves to be 'non-denominational'. BMurray 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They do not regard themselves as a 'denomination' in the sense that they contend that they are a restoration of first-century Christianity rather than something that developed later. However, in the normal sense of the word, they are a denomination, and if laws refer to allowing a "denomination" to be registered, JWs will not object to that use of the term. (See also JW Yearbook 1973, pages 133-4)--Jeffro77 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes this came from the discussion at the Christianity article:

Justo A. González, The Story of Chistianity, Vol. 2, "The Reformation to the Present Day" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 193, 240, 244; Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 230-35, 308, 452, 465-66; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5, "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" (Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1983), 192-93; 197-98.

these references call JW's Christian. George 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Would you please quote--with some context--the language from these sources you refer to. I would like to consider what you find in these texts in support of your assertion that "these references call Jehovah's Witnesses Christian".-- Marvin Shilmer 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: In relation to the dispute of record, the problem I see with the works you cite is that they broadly categorize religious movements whereas the article we are dealing with focuses specifically on one religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

When we examine vetted articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses we seldom find usage stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This is not because the writers are suggesting Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. Rather, the writers (often sociologists) understand when addressing a specific religion it is better to apply a term tailored to fit that religion without making broad characterizations.

Hence, in different peer reviewed articles specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses find:

- Dr. Christine King apply the term “Christian sect”. (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 14 (1979), 21 1-34)

- Drs Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone apply the term “Christian Sect”. (Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997)

- Drs Pauline Cote and James Richardson apply the term “milliarian group”. (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2001)

- Dr. Joseph Zygmunt applies the term “chiliastic”. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75, No. 6, May, 1970)

- Dr. Theodore W. Sprague applies the term “sect”. (Social Forces, Vol. 21, No. 3, Mar., 1943)

- Dr. J. R. Hooker applies the term “fundamentalist sect”. (Journal of African History, Vol. I, 1965)

Again, all these are vetted sources.

I have no heartburn over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, or over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as professed Christian. But I do admit that the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian” is a subjective statement whereas the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses professed Christianity” is objective.

Regarding authors cited above, it is perhaps noteworthy that the Watchtower organization frequently cites King and Stark as authoritative sources addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

-- Marvin Shilmer 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and I think a majority of the editors feel otherwise. This has been talked to death and the most neutral course is to refer to the JWs as they refer to themselves and then note the controversy. Otherwise, we are imposing our own views. Dtbrown 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown:

I provided an edit that had Jehovah's Witnesses referring to themselves according to their preference. Why did you delete this? What part of my edit had Jehovah's Witnesses referred to in any way other than how they refer to themselves? (My edit that you changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=129066948) Please be specific.

-- Marvin Shilmer 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New footnotes in Blood section

Do we really need all the citations in the Blood section regarding the question whether some JWs disagree on the blood doctrine? I believe this is overkill. Can we not pare that down to 2 or 3 of the best citations? Dtbrown 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown:

It seems odd to me that an editor experienced with this particular article would think it overkill to verify a statement to a point where it is undeniable. Rather than talking this to death, why don't we just let the reference material speak for itself for the sake of editors who insist on a personal belief that there is uniform acceptance of the Watchtower organization's blood doctrine among Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do you believe the references provided are overkill, exactly?

-- Marvin Shilmer 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Dtbrown. Citation overload can be self-defeating, and I think we should see if it's possible to adequately verify the information with fewer footnotes. It may also be possible to combine some of the footnotes together if the references all verify the same assertion. -- mattb 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown and mattb:

Okay, I've reduced the number of references. Now are you two going to assist when editors come along disagreeing with the supported statement and delete it?

-- Marvin Shilmer 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Yeah... We've both edited this article for a long time. -- mattb 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Marvin. Dtbrown 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity

I was a little surprised to discover that there is no article titled Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity. There is, after all, an article titled Mormonism and Christianity. I would encourage editors to read that article and consider whether there would be value in creating a similar page titled Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity. My thinking is that much of the above discussion about whether or not JWs are Christian could be presented for Wikipedia readers in such an article. Instead of fighting so hard over a single word or phrase (e.g. "Christian", "Christian sect", "religious organization"), we could make this debate part of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity article with full supporting evidence. This way, each reader can decide for himself/herself based on a full exposition of the debate. --Richard 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Such an article will be prone to rampant bias, so I'll be keeping an eye on it.--Jeffro77 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There would still need to be an intro here and it either would or wouldn't say JWs are Christian. A.J.A. 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

That is an excellent proposal.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A:

The article Richard proposes would, necessarily, avoid expressing either conclusion. Instead it would present authoratative reference material for whatever views are out there. These sources would, naturally, present conclusions based on their perspective. But the article presentation would leave it to readers to draw their own conclusion from and of these resources, which is as it should be.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marvin. The intro would simply say that JWs profess themselves to be Christians and that some Christian groups and scholars dispute that characterization. We present all sides of the issue and let the reader decide. All with verifiable citations to reliable sources of course.

BTW, as a clarification, my idea was inspired by this long and contentious debate over whether to characterize JWs as Christians but I do want to point out that this proposed article shouldn't be restricted to this one issue. Mormonism and Christianity covers all the issues between Mormonism and Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity should do likewise providing perhaps a discussion of the JW translation of the Bible and other issues which I'm not able to rattle off the top of my head.

--Richard 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed. conlict)

Well, yes. But that doesn't really change that fact that the intro to this article has to say something and that no matter what it says, someone won't like it. A.J.A. 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What people like or dislike is irrelevant to the force of good academic presentation. If the presentation is sufficiently verified this should help alleviate reckless editors who choose to disregard in public view. Either a statement (or statements) is verifiable and verified or it is not.

The benefit of multiple editors is not to make everyone happy, but rather to test the veracity of whatever is presented.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still stuck on what we should do about the intro. I'm inclined to have the intro say "JWs are an international Christian faith" with a footnote that says "Although JWs profess to be Christian, some Christian groups and scholars dispute that claim on the grounds that they are non-Trinitaran. For further details on this controversy, see Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity. We would then put a much fuller exposition of the debate in the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity article.

I do accept the argument that the article on the Roman Catholic Church does not have similar treatment although some groups do claim that Catholics are not Christians. My only response to this is that the claim that Catholics are not Christians is a minority view whereas the argument that JWs are not Christians might be argued to be a majority view or, at least, a view which is more widely held.

--Richard 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this rather powerful comment on yahoo answers:

However, too many anti-Witnesses scheme to propagandize and simply pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. Trinitarians use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God. Interestingly, pagans in the first century pretended that Christ's followers were Atheists(!) because the Christians had a somewhat different idea from the pagans about the nature of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe! Both secular dictionaries and disinterested theologians acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.

The Trinitarian arguments are intended to insult and demean Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to give a Scripturally accurate understanding of the term "Christian".

In fact, the bible most closely associates being "Christian" with preaching about Christ and Christ's teachings. Review all three times the bible uses the term "Christian" and note that the context connects the term with:

"declaring the good news"

'teaching quite a crowd'

'open eyes, turn from dark to light'

"uttering sayings of truth"

"persuade"

"keep on glorifying"

(Acts 11:20-26) [The early disciples of Jesus] began talking to the Greek-speaking people, declaring the good news of the Lord Jesus... and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

(Acts 26:17-28) [Jesus said to Paul] I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God... Paul said: “I am not going mad, Your Excellency Festus, but I am uttering sayings of truth and of soundness of mind. ...Do you, King Agrippa, believe the Prophets? I know you believe.” But Agrippa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”

(1 Peter 4:14-16) If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy... But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name

So why do anti-Witnesses try to hijack the term "Christian" and hide its Scriptural implications? Because anti-Witnesses recognize that it is the preaching work that makes it clear that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are by far the most prominent followers of Christ:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded."

[User:George m|George]] 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

George M:

The author of that attempted apologia is achtung_heiss, who is a Jehovah's Witness. It is not very robust to cite a Jehovah's Witness as though an authoratative source on the question of whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. In this instance the author, achtung_heiss, makes several unsubstantiated assertions of history he then uses as premises in support of his favored conclusion. This means he has offered an editorial rather than a sound academic presentation. There are plenty of vetted articles available on this subject so there is no need to appeal to a source such as yahoo answers.

-- Marvin Shilmer 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, presenting such an argument has the effect of trying to get us to decide whether or not JWs are Christian. We should resist any temptation to do so. I personally find the argument quoted by George m compelling. In my experience, Mormons and JWs act more in a Christian way than many Trinitarians. However, encyclopedic neutrality argues that we are not looking to establish "THE TRUTH" but to describe the "sum of human knowledge". You cannot do this by taking away and hiding positions that you do not agree with.

--Richard 22:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you got the point. I just wanted to interject some perspective. BTW The majority of references listed in this discussion so far have identified JW's as Christian. George 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sort of got the point. I would prefer that we neither say "JWs are Christian" nor say "JWs are not Christian" even though I personally believe that JWs are. However, since Wikipedia does make a judgment for other groups, we are forced to make some sort of judgment for the JWs as well. The most compelling argument in my book is that if we say things like "JWs self-profess..." or "JWs claim to be Christian" then we would have to do that for other groups as well and what a hornet's nest that would stir up.

So...Wikipedia should not say "JWs are Christian" but since it does say it for other groups, then we may as well be even-handed and say it for the JWs too. We address the concerns of the Trinitarians who want to exclude JWs by having the footnote. Some people object to even the footnote but compromises must be struck and I think this is a pretty fair one all around.

Over the next few days, I will start working on the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity article that I proposed. I do not intend this article to be simply a list of reasons why JWs are not considered Christians. I would like an objective discussion of how JWs differ from "traditional mainstream Christianity", what the "traditional mainstream" thinks of the differences and what the JWs think about the differences. That is, the JW view that they are the "true Christians" should be given equal weight as the mainstream view that JWs are not Christians. I hope you and Marvin Shilmer will join me in this endeavor.

--Richard 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

How can you find an argument compelling when its premises are left dangling without any substantiation beyond the statement of the editor?

You and I certainly agree that encyclopedic content must focus on the sum of human knowledge rather than telling people what they should think, or expressing conclusions not presented by authoritative sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

George M:

Are you counting the self-declared sources published by the Watchtower organization? -- Marvin Shilmer 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin,

I found the argument quoted by George m "personally compelling". It convinces me that JWs are Christian enough. "You will know them by their love." Well, yeah, JWs also do some pretty hateful stuff but so do other Christians (thankfully, we have the glimmer of hope that sectarian conflict in Ireland may finally cease).

What I find "personally compelling" does not mean that I would put it in the article. Wikipedia cannot dictate that I personally remain neutral; only that the articles be neutral. I labor for that neutrality in Wikipedia even when I do take sides in the dispute personally.

I am pretty tired of this discussion. Christian love should seek to unite rather than to divide. Unfortunately, the history of Christianity is full of division and conflict rather than love and unity. How frail we sinful humans are.

If they will love me as a Christian, then I can leave my doctrinal pettiness at the door and break bread with them. In the end, that's all that matters.

--Richard 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

I have no issue with saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. My question had to do with the substance of the argument cited by George M, not to mention the form is fallacious (another story). In substance the argument is no more than a special plea, and an opinionated one at that.

Love ya. Mean it. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add one more thought on this subject. Quakers are known as a Christian denomination and yet many Quakers are non-trinitarian. (There are groups that are trinitarian and they are usually referred to as Friends Churches. Most "unprogrammed" Quaker meetings are non-trinitarian.) It would be unthinkable for a secular encyclopedia to not accept the self-identification of Quakers as Christian despite the disagreement with orthodox Christian theology. For similar reasons, I think we must accept the Witnesses self-identification as Christian for this secular resource. Dtbrown 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of long quotations and WP:NONFREE

According to WP:NONFREE

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

So the question is "what is fair use" and "what is extensive (or excessive) quotation"?

The quotes in the references are not terribly long, constituting in general 2-3 long sentences. Many articles have one or even two paragraphs of copyrighted text quoted in the body of the article. As long as this does not constitute a "substantial portion of the text" and does not "materially reduce the value of the original work", we can claim "fair use". Now, if you were to quote an entire chapter from a book, that would be clearly excessive.

--Richard 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Current intro

Marvin's current edit is a good compromise and we need to agree on something. I find it acceptable, nothing can be perfect, can we agree on it? George 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fails because the first sentence needs more than just "religious." The first sentence should give us more. Are the JWs part of Islam? Or Buddhism? Or some other religious system? The JWs obviously fall into the Christian category and to deny them that listing here because some people feel they are heretical is blatantly POV. Dtbrown 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77 edit explanation please

Jeffro77: Would you please explain your editing of the introduction. Your edit remarks are nonsensical compared to the actual text you've edited. Please exlpain.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I call upon other editors to comment on whether they also cannot understand the comment I made in the edit remarks and the change I made.--Jeffro77 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I understand perfectly what you wrote. What is not explained is why you wrote it. Your editing remark is unrelated to what you edited. Please explain.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that your references attempt to imply that a minority view (from the point of view of official perspectives in some countries) is actually a worldwide view.--Jeffro77 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Your comment only confirms what your editing demonstrates. You have not considered what you keep editing. Please take time to actually read the reference material and ask yourself one question, "Does the reference material verify the attached statement?" Would you please do this and report your findings so it can be discussed in a mature fashion, and without repeated nonsensical editing? Your last edit was in patent disregard for the reference material actually provided.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you simply not understand that you are stating that experts (with the strong implication of all experts) believe them to be a sect?--Jeffro77 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I checked the weak German and French references, however they do not constitute a worldwide view, or agreement by "experts" worldwide.--Jeffro77 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Okay, you tell me. How many references would you like me to provide in verification of the statement? You know as well as I do that Watchtower literature is rife with acknowledgments that it understands Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed as a sect, which is the statement in question. So how many citations will suit your needs?-- Marvin Shilmer 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no practical way to prove that all experts believe them to be a sect. I could say "experts agree that climate change does not exist", and then quote a long string of those experts. It doesn't prove that all experts agree. You can validly put "some experts".--Jeffro77 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"September 26, 1996 ... the European Court of Human Rights, at Strasbourg, unanimously reaffirmed that “Jehovah’s Witnesses come within the definition of ‘known religion,’”" - Watchtower 1998, 1 May p. 21 par. 7

Jeffro77:

1. I have not stated that all experts believe Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. So why do you state what you do? It is fallacious to offer as refutation evidence disputing something I have not argued, or even stated.

2. Please note that your reference stating ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses come within the definition of known religion’ is in no way inconsistent with anything whatsoever I have said or presented in the article’s main text or end notes. So what is your point in citing this reference?

3. Since I have not asserted that all experts believe Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect, then please let me digress back to the question asked by requesting, again, how many references do you require to substantiate the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses realize their religion is characterized by experts as Neo-Christian and considered a sect.”? How many?

4. Considering the widespread belief known by Jehovah’s Witnesses that they are a religious sect, this deserves factual presentation in any article addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion. Supposedly you are aware of the Reasoning from the Scriptures publication of the Watchtower. It addresses this very issue for a purpose, which is the widespread belief that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect. I will make one more attempt at editing the statement and references you keep deleting. Should you object to the edit then at least some semblance of an explanation from you would be appreciated prior to further edit. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All of those points are largely summed up like this: If you state that "experts" say something, without acknowledging that it is a subset of experts, the implication is that all experts say it, and that is the natural inference that most people would make from what you want in the article. Ergo, what you said is tantamount to saying that all experts call them a sect.--Jeffro77 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Please review universal standards for academic usage. It is always a bad idea to assume anything beyond what is actually stated. This is, apparently, what led to your mistaken notions. I will keep this in mind for future edits you undertake.

Your supercilious assertion has been appropriately ignored. I was taking into consideration how the average reader will interpret the passage. Please keep the target audience in mind before making 'pseudo-academic' judgements.--Jeffro77 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As for your latest edit, was that so hard for you? Why didn't you just do what you ultimately did in the first place and save both of us the time? The next time rather than going wild with your delete key why not try constructive editing instead. It would also be nice were you to articulate reasons for your edit that align with the edits you undertake.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, why didn't you??--Jeffro77 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else misunderstand my edits?--Jeffro77 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have worked to find acceptable ground on this microcosmic issue. I have done this with constructive contribution rather than destructive deletion. I have also performed due diligence by consulting reputable and non-partisan source materials. I have also brought considerable academic training to bear, not to mention a willingness to go to near extremes in explanation (apparently to little if any avail).-- Marvin Shilmer 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Are JWs a "sect"?

I'm having trouble following the "some experts / all experts" gobbledygook between Jeffro77 and Marvin Shilmer.

Let's cut to the chase...

Are JWs a "Christian sect"? Well, let's consult Wikipedia's article on sect

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.

In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices.

So... are the JWs " a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters."

Uh... I think it's blatantly obvious that the JWs fit this definition.

Now how about being "a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices"?

Uh, oh... there's that bothersome "H" word. The problem here is that the JWs believe that the rest of Christendom has "deviated from orthodox practices (orthodox in the sense of 'right teaching')" and that they are the true Christians. Well, every sect believes that. That's why they're sects.

What's the problem here?

Um, let me clarify here... Watchtower acknowledges that many other Christians consider the JWs a sect. And, presumably this is no big deal since the JWs don't want to be associated with mainstream Christianity anyways. (seems like I've said this earlier on this talk page, we keep going round in circles)

--Richard 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think blatantly obvious is wrong. Which denomination did JW's break off from? JW's disagree with all the rest of 'Christianity' on some level. You have to assume that all the rest of Christianity is of one mind to conclude JW's are a sect by the deifinition found at WP. George 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard and George M:

I'm sure we agree encyclopedic content must be based in good academic practice and presentation. That is, it must strive to present verifiable information to leave a reader with as correct an impression as possible about whatever the subject of address. This requires that editors consider word usage as applied by a nonpartisan and respected academia.

When addressing a religious body, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, these apply the term “sect” to denote a recognized group that from a larger perspective is a subgroup of a larger recognized body. Hence when Christine King, for example, refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as “a Christian sect” her usage is stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a distinguishable religious body professing Christianity among a larger body of professed Christians. King’s usage reflects no religious bias, and it has all the hallmarks of good academic presentation. This type usage is nothing more than a mechanism to articulate a distinguishable religious sphere within a greater theater of religious preference.

This means that, from a purely academic and nonpartisan perspective, to say Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “Christian sect,” or “a sect” is no more than saying Jehovah’s Witnesses are a distinctive religious body professing Christianity, or in the latter case, a religious body.

Hence from an academic perspective it is a bit trivial for the Wiki article addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses to state that Jehovah’s Witnesses recognizes it is viewed as a sect. I say trivial because, again from an academic perspective, it amounts to a tautology of sorts saying “X religion knows it is viewed as a religion”. Triviality aside, I have not objected to Jeffro77’s edit reciting this presentation because, frankly, I got tired of explaining things and preferred to move on. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Marvin. Although "sect" is used pejoratively by some, used neutrally, it just means a smaller group which separates itself from a larger group over doctrinal issues (e.g. JWs separating itself from the rest of Christendom). It is natural that those in the larger group would use "sect" pejoratively to refer to those who differ from them doctrinally. Big deal, the JWs refer to Christendom pejoratively as well. --Richard 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, other articles do not use the term Bahá'í Faith Christianitytechnically are abrahamic sects. More powerful though are Amish Mormonism Religious Society of Friends also, the article on Christian denominations does not refere to JW's or any other 'Christian' group as a sect. We should be balanced and fair. JW's should not be singled out and described as a sect unless we refer to all Christian groups as sects or we find out what the difference between a sect and a denomination actually is. Sorry if it seems like I am muddying the waters but they are already muddy and we can't pretend there is clarity. AN actin across the board of all articles is going to have to take place if you want to include 'sect'. George 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, George. If all smaller Christian groups are not referred to as sects, we should probably avoid using the word to refer to JWs. But otherwise, I still say it's a sect per the discussion above.

--Richard 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Christian

It just occurred to me (based on Jeffro77's latest edit) that the dispute could have been about whether JWs were "Neo-Christian" or not. To me, "Neo-Christian" means "Restorationist" so that equivalence assertion seemed like a no-brainer to me. However, I figured I'd better check my favorite reference source (Wikipedia) and I discovered that Neo-Christian redirects to Swedenborgianism and that's not what we want the reader to think. So, I agree that we should avoid using the phrase "Neo-Christian" to characterize JWs.

--Richard 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue was that there was a single source from a Hungarian university that called them Neo-Christian, but it was stated as if it were a widespread expert opinion. The general assertion that "experts" say anything is unwise (unless it actually is something universally agreed by experts), as, despite Marvin's claim of 'academic usage', most readers would assume that all experts are meant if there is no qualifier.--Jeffro77 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard and Jeffro77:

When organization "X" takes it upon itself to characterize person/organization "Y" as an expert then so far as X is concerned Y should be considered an expert from X's perspective regarding Y's analysis of X.

Hence the reason Watchtower's usage of "Neo-Christian" as applied by the "experts" it cites is valid usage for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses is because it is the world headquarter organization regonized by all Jehovah's Witnesses that has identified the source as "expert". It is not, as Jeffro77 asserts, a matter of a single source. By its decree of "expert" and subsequent publication the Watchtower organization has given global legs to the perspective of the said "experts" so far as what they have to say about Jehovah's Witnesses.

My usage that is under consideration here was presented as the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses. If a person accepts what the Watchtower organization stipulates as representative of Jehovah's Witnesses then there are no logical bases to object to what I wrote. To object to this is to dismiss what a primary source (Watchtower) expresses as its own perspective. In this case, Jeffro77 is rejecting a published perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses as stipulated by the recognized organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. The very notion is preposterous! What is Jeffro77 saying? That the Watchtower was disingenous in its characterization of its source as "expert" in its depiction of Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, what other Watchtower perspectives would Jeffro77 have us dismiss based on his opinion? -- Marvin Shilmer 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the Watchtower Society refers to JWs as "Neo-Christian" on a consistent basis. If there is evidence that JW or non-JW sources use this phrase consistently or even frequently, we can consider making reference to it here. Otherwise, the use of the phrase generates more heat than light. --Richard 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Watchtower Society has never referred to JWs as "Neo-Christians" itself. Once, it quoted a single Hungarian source that called them "Neo-Christians".--Jeffro77 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: With respect, I think you are minimizing the incident. By the way it chose to present the statement from University of Istanbul staff the Watchtower organization raised status of the staff’s opinion to “expert” from the Watchtower organization’s perspective. Hence the Watchtower organization on its own volition essentially said, ‘These individuals determine Jehovah’s Witness doctrine as Neo-Christian and we believe these men have offered an expert perspective.’ To then publish this in over one hundred languages and distribute it globally is more than you depict. Jeffro77 retorts that “The Watchtower Society has never referred to JWs as Neo-Christians.” But he too avoids the actual published statement by conveniently omitting that the Watchtower deemed the opinion as expert. He also avoids that the Watchtower presented this opinion precisely because it was a third-party opinion, which only raises its authoritativeness. My questions for Jeffro77’s positing on this incident remain, and it also remains that the Watchtower gave global legs to this opinion by raising it to the status of expert, from its perspective.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason to explain the context of their use of the term expert, because I have outlined that previously, and you ignored or failed to understand it the first time.--Jeffro77 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You did not outline the pertinent context of usage and attribution. You attempted to explain away the fact that Watchtower ascribed expert status to an opinion when it did not have to attribute that status. By the time the Watchtower published what it did the legal battle was won. Other than for bolstering its own image the Watchtower had no reason to publish what it did. But it did choose to publish it, and it attributed expertise to the opinion it reiterated by quote.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of their intentions is contradicted by other statements published by the Watchtower in which they promote their religion as a restoration of first-century Christianity. If you disagree, write to the Watchtower Society, and ask them yourself.--Jeffro77 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have not expressed an opinion on this issue, and neither have I addressed intention. I have expressed material and demonstrable facts.

1) The Watchtower attributed expert status to the finding of staff at the University of Istanbul. Agree or disagree?

2) The Watchtower did not have to attribute expert status to the finding from the University of Istanbul. Agree or disagree?

3) The Watchtower published the finding as a third-party authority, in addition to attributing expert status to it. Agree or disagree?

4) Publishing this finding was done after the legal battle was won and not before, so its publication did not influence or otherwise impinge the legal outcome. Agree or disagree?

5) The Watchtower did not have to publish anything whatsoever regarding the legal wrangling in Turkey. Agree or disagree?

6) The Watchtower published its opinion in over a hundred languages with global circulation that the view expressed from University of Istanbul staff was expert. Agree or disagree?

These material facts represent the value of the cited material. Now please show me where any of this expresses an opinion or speaks to intention, or is contradicted by other Watchtower statement. Please. Show me. I’d be happy to consider whatever you present. But I see no basis for thinking Watchtower comments that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a sect as a basis for contradicting its opinion that the depiction by University of Istanbul staff is an expert perspective. And I see nothing whatsoever contradicting the global legs the Watchtower gave this opinion from Istanbul. Do you? -- Marvin Shilmer 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of pandering to your rambling requests. I will reiterate this one more time though, that what was stated as the expert opinion of the Istanbul university is clearly not agreed with by the Watchtower Society, demonstrable by many Watchtower quotes stating that they regard their religion to be a restoration of first-century Christianity, and therefore, not Neo-Christianity. All the Watchtower quote indicates is that they acknowledge that the court regarded the university opinion as being one of experts. I realise that you will continue to ramble on about the word 'expert', however there is no benefit in continuing, as your position is demonstably futile in view of the context of that article, and of other Watchtower quotes.--Jeffro77 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I agree wholeheartedly that the Watchtower organization professes itself as Christian, and as the restoration of first-century Christianity. But this is not a factual status; it is a professed status. I am still bumfuzzled as to why this objective presentation you find troublesome.

In your reply you again avoid the Watchtower attribution of expertise to UI staff by suggesting this was an attribution of a Turkish court rather than of the Watchtower. Yet the Watchtower asserts this status of expertise as its own despite whatever view the Turkish court held or did not hold. Frankly, the Watchtower presentation does not suggest how the Turkish court received this opinion from UI staff, or even if it found the opinion relevant. Hence your suggestion is no more than conjecture. It is no wonder you do not want to answer the simple questions I asked of you.

Again, a lot of typing with not a lot of benefit. The Watchtower called them "legal experts", not "experts" in a general sense, nor "religious experts". In the very next paragraph, the article asks the question "What resulted?", then explains that the court found in favour of them being a Christian religion. Considering the fact that the other groups that were consulted said they weren't Christian at all, then that certainly does indicate (rather than merely "suggest") "how the Turkish court received this opinion from the UI staff". Please read the material you are commenting on. I'm going on holiday and won't be continuing this inane topic.--Jeffro77 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Again you apply an inference as more than an inference. The fact remains the Watchtower attributed expert status and gladly accepted the opinion of UI staff. The fact remains that the Watchtower did not comment on how the Turkish court received the UI opinion. Anyone remotely familiar with researching legal litigation (such as in a Westlaw type database) learns immediately that it is unusual for a court to reject the merit of a given testimony though the court subsequently happens to arrive at a finding consistent with that testimony for reasons unrelated to that testimony. Hence the need not to assume regarding evidentiary findings. Apparently you are unaware of this.

You are deliberately ignoring the context and intent of the Watchtower article to suit your own reasoning.--Jeffro77 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As for reading, I have not only read the Watchtower commentary on this issue, I have also read related court documents. Have you? -- Marvin Shilmer 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your condescending self-important comments are tiresome.--Jeffro77 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for editors to work through issues. By your refusal you are making this task much harder than it has to be. This is neither considerate nor professional.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, You are not working through any issues though. You are projecting your own actions onto Jeff. The lengthy endless debates of infinite counter-points have damaged your creditability here. Fcsuper 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

L A Times reference, and John Dart

This reference was recently edited to show an author other than John Dart. Though this has been corrected, the editor states he does not have this material to confirm his edit (if I understand him/her correctly). I do have this article in my library collection, and can confirm John Dart is the author.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Controversy Section, Christian / Not Christian / Sect / Non-Sect etc

This discussion is now beyond the pale. We have reduced good academic presentations/sources to a controversial section of discussion, and these are not at all sources addressing the controversy editors apparently see. It is unethical to present the works of those authors as though they address something controversial when they do not.

Editors should take care not to allow religious rancor or spin to influence what should be an academic presentation. While how a religion (or even an individual for that matter) presents and professes itself is a piece of information, from an academic perspective that is all it is--a piece of information. Hence an academic crosses a line when he goes from relating what a group professes to asserting what it is. This is why trained and experienced social scientists are careful to use terms that are narrow when addressing the disposition of any religious organization. This is why when I inserted the remark of Stark et al (i.e., that JWs are a "Christian denomination") I was careful to point out the authors were using this depiction for a broad ranging survey. But when the very same authors address JWs specifically they invariably use terms such as "sect" or "Christian sect" or something similar. Yet these terms are not party to the controversy religionistic editors attribute here; hence using these sources as though representing a controversy is way beyond inappropriate.

When, as George M proposes, we begin thinking how one religion is presented should be treated similar to how other religions are treated in an encyclopedic work they have lost sight of good academic presentation and starting thinking in terms of spin. Whether one group (religious, social, you-name-it) is properly presented in encyclopedic fashion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether another set of authors have appropriately presented another group. Editors should focus on the task at hand. If, after that work is complete, they feel another subject needs work then by all means they should feel free to address these by editing.

No, I disagree. One of the major weaknesses of Wikipedia is lack of consistency across articles. Wikiprojects help to provide consistency and perhaps this dispute should be referred to Wikiproject Christianity for resolution. My position about "profess Christianity" is that it is accurate but it is also accurate in reference to Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If those articles don't say "Catholics profess Christianity", then neither should the JW article use that formula. --Richard 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding usage of the term "sect," I doubt many or the predominant religious groups would shake and shudder at the notion of the term being applied toward them. Why should, for example, a United Methodist be concerned with whether someone refers to their religious grouping as a "sect" as is common by sociologist? They have no reason.

I disagree, they would "shake and shudder" because most of the predominant groups consider themselves the larger, mainstream group rather than the smaller, breakaway sect. Thus, there are many Protestant sects but the "mainstream" Protestant denominations (e.g. Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian) do not consider themselves sects. And certainly the Catholics and Orthodox do not consider themselves sects.

So if an editor believes such information is needed as part of an appropriate presentation then take the project on and get to it. But it is inappropriate to think needed work on one subject should influence work on another subject. Such thinking reduces academic presentations to a low common denominator.

Or appeal to Wikiproject Christianity to formulate a policy across articles. --Richard 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one else removes those fine academic sources from the controversial section, I will. They are not being used appropriately, and I am beginning to regret having ever provided them. Unfortunately this will probably hinder future sharing of source material for worry of inappropriate usage.

-- Marvin Shilmer 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you are free to remove any information you want. I'm not sure what you mean by "spin." I happen to believe the Witnesses to be a heretical group but I'm not bringing that to the article. Dtbrown 23:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really... these sources don't "belong" to Marvin. How we use the sources is up to consensus. That said, we should work to achieve a collegial and amicable consensus rather than forcing policy down anybody's throat. --Richard 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: An editor is spinning when he or she lets an end result influence what he or she presents rather than letting good academic standards of excellence speak for itself. What is the end editors here are bickering over? Whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian? By now it should be self-evident that if such a statement were demonstrable then we would not still be talking about it. Academic presentations are to share information. Jehovah's Witnesses profess Christianity. This is a piece of demonstrable (objective, verifiable) information. But that is all it is. Information. Whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is not demonstrable; it is subjective based on a point of reference that is purely a matter of interpretation. Is this self-professed status important information? Yes. And so is the perspective of society at large, social scientists et al. This too is information. If it impinges on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion then it too is information important enough to share under the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion. Neither of these pieces of information is more of less important than the other. But to watch editors here fight over this leaves the unmistakable hallmark of rancorous bias and spin. Academia sees no "sides". Academia digs for information and shares it.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, if what you said is true then we can't say any religion is part of the Christian movement. Dtbrown 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: What we can say is what is objective and verifiable. We can say religion X is (or, is not) generally regarded as mainstream Christianty. We can say religion X has (or does not have) roots in traditional Christianity. We can say religion X confesses Christ.... We can say religion X professes Christianity. But what an academic work cannot say is that religion X is Christian, without qualification. Encyclopedic presentations must avoid making subjective statements and must stick to objective sharing of information, and what is verifiable. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"But what an academic work cannot say is that religion X is Christian." Academic works do that all the time. So, Marvin, can an academic work say the Catholic Church is a Christian religion? Or the Quakers? Dtbrown 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

May I also posit that being objective and accurate doesn't neccessitate being pedantic. We're writing for the sake of the lay person, not sociologists. Explanations should be as simple as possible as long as they're reasonably correct. -- mattb 01:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your response and assertion is a classic example of poor academic standard. You assert “Academic works do this all the time” of a statement you attribute to me, as though your remark is refutation. Do you really think learned participants here fail to note that you attributed a statement to me that I did not make? You may delete this silly stunt before I have time to reply. But you committed yourself to a fallacious method nevertheless.

When you ask about “the Catholic Church” your inquiry demonstrates a lack of understanding your own question. What “Catholic Church” are you talking about? The Greek Catholic Church? The Russian Catholic Church? The Christian Catholic Church (yes there is such a named religious body)? The Syrian Catholic Church? Which one are you inquiring of? You can look up any of these—and many more—and they all are qualified in terms of their relationship to Christianity.

Perhaps you were intending to inquire of me regarding Roman Catholicism. If so, this represents a special case (of three). Are you aware that historians, sociologists and theologians regard Christianity, itself, as a religion? If so, then you should also know that Christianity is traditionally accepted to have three major branches. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Protestant churches. Hence from a historical and traditional perspective it is objective to refer to these special cases as Christian without qualification, or with very little qualification. But after this, when academically rigorous encyclopedias present religions as a subset of one of these three, then we see qualification of how they relate to Christianity. This is even more the case when academics present information on a relatively minor religious movements/groups.

Finally, I do not suggest editing here advance to hair-splitting. Encyclopedic content and presentation need only be verifiably informative and objective. Also it should avoid subjective assertion. Neither require pedantry.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Marvin. I happen to be a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church myself so I know a bit about what you're referring to. Nonetheless, most people know what is meant by "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." There is no need to refer to statements by others who disagree with you as a "silly stunt" or following a "poor academic standard."

I'll repeat the question. You said that "an academic work cannot say is that religion X is Christian." Can an academic work say the Catholic Church is a Christian religion? Or the Quakers? Dtbrown 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Again: Perhaps you were intending to inquire of me regarding Roman Catholicism. If so, this represents a special case (of three). Are you aware that historians, sociologists and theologians regard Christianity, itself, as a religion? If so, then you should also know that Christianity is traditionally accepted to have three major branches. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Protestant churches. Hence from a historical and traditional perspective it is objective to refer to these special cases as Christian without qualification, or with very little qualification. But after this, when academically rigorous encyclopedias present religions as a subset of one of these three, then we see qualification of how they relate to Christianity. This is even more the case when academics present information on a relatively minor religious movements/groups.

So, we're going to follow an orthodox line of which groups are Christian or not? I think that is POV pushing. Dtbrown 02:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No. Not an orthodox line. A known point of reference. Every presentation has to work from a baseline. If presentations purported to speak to subject X in respect to various agents of X do not hold to a consistent baseline as a point of reference for X then statements become spin rather than objective sharing of information intended to educate.

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses this is as simple as stating the facts without asserting more. Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity. This is demonstrable. What is the problem with this objective presentation? After this objective introduction then the main text can express issues in more detail as to how Jehovah’s Witnesses relate to Christianity. This, too, is something demonstrable; hence objective.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So, we define JWs in relation to other Christian groups? Some groups are more Christian than others? Dtbrown 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No. Not more Christian, and not less Christian. Just an objective sharing of verifiable information about, in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses' relationship with Christianity. The discussion only begins from a baseline of a known point of reference. It does not end there. In the end readers have to decide for themselves if, in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, Christian enough, sort of Christian, less Christian, more Christian, or not Christian. The work of an encyclopedic entry is to provide objective information as a reservoir for readers and researchers to have increased opportunity to form educated conclusions.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If we were editing a religious work I could see your point. We're not out to say a group may not actually be Christian despite their claim. Dtbrown 03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have not suggested an editor should assert, in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses are not actually Christian despite their profession of Christianity. Hence I fail to understand what your statement means in relation to this discussion.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the net result of your proposal is to remove any statement that JWs are Christian.Dtbrown 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Then you fail to understand what I have written. A statement that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is appropriate in the context of the profession of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is objective (not to mention verifiable) to write "Jehovah's Witnesses profess Christianity," or "The religion's view is that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian," or something of the like. These statement are all objective and verifiable. It continues to baffle me why anyone would or could object to this presentation. It expresses precisely what the religion itself states, and it lays claim to the appellation "Christian". So would you please explain why this is in any way whatsoever objectionable.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's objective. Just as saying that Catholics profess Christianity is objective. It's also unnecessary when a simpler and more understandable wording exists. -- mattb 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: The fallacy of your statement is of comparing a special case with a non-special case. Because the two are relevantly dissimilar it is fallacious to compare them as equivalents.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Good, we've identified a point we fundamentally disagree on. You feel that this comparison is fallacious and I feel that your rejection of it is artificial. Moving on. Let me use this example, then. Is the Protestant movement a sect of Catholicism? -- mattb 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: The conventional point of reference holds three special cases; Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. In these forms (or, religious distinctions) it is acceptable usage to term these Christian with no or little qualification from a historical and traditional perspective. Beyond these three special cases objective presentations by necessity have an obligation to qualify how a religion relates to Christianity. I say necessity because something divergent has occurred or else the particular religion in question would not be distinctive. It is the religion’s distinctiveness necessitating a narrower and qualified presentation of how it relates to Christianity (i.e., the conventional point of reference for purpose of baseline). Without this a reader is left with a false impression that there is, essentially, no difference; no relevant distinction. It is, therefore, just as fallacious to treat the United Methodists as equivalent with Protestantism in terms of Christianity as it is to treat Jehovah’s Witnesses as equivalent with Protestantism/Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy in terms of Christianity. Though United Methodists are Protestants all Protestants are not United Methodists. Hence the need for a narrower presentation in relation to the baseline point of reference so readers/researchers can distinguish whatever the differences. (edited for typos and other) -- Marvin Shilmer 03:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If such clarification is needed, what exactly was wrong with the proposed footnote solution? It keeps the lead simple and straightforward but also readily provides the additional clarification you seek. -- mattb 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it Matt I think your proposed footnote solution is the way to go.Dtbrown 04:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we be concerned with usage of the word "sect" in the strict sociological sense? No, not at all, it's appropriate terminology. However, there are undeniable negative connotations associated with the word as it is used in the vernacular. I'd just prefer to avoid that word due to the associations attached to it. Encyclopedias don't utilize academic rigor, but try to convey the topic in a manner as fair and understandable as possible to the lay man.

I'll draw a weak comparison to the word "theory". In the scientific sense, "theory" has a fairly specific meaning that differs somewhat from its usage by the average person. While it's totally accurate to name an article about Einstein's magnum opus "The theory of General Relativity", we dispense with such formality because it's unnecessary and could be misleading to the lay man. In fact, the word becomes extremely loaded when used with a controversial subject like evolution. Many would prefer to have that particular article entitled "The theory of Evolution" to serve their viewpoint, but due to the slight difference in understanding of "theory" in the scientific and lay sense, it is inappropriate to title it thus even though it is technically correct. -- mattb 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: It defies my senses to read an editor of an encyclopedic presentation/work say that encyclopedias don't utilize academic rigor! -- Marvin Shilmer 00:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've helped bring peer-reviewed papers to publication and I have some idea of what academic rigor involves. I stand by my statement. -- mattb 01:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: Your response speaks for itself, and it is loud. Thanks for sharing this piece of enlightening information. It should save time moving forward, at least for me.

The moment a work fails to strive for academic rigor is the day it fails as an objective source of information. I’ll leave it for you to decide if an encyclopedic work is supposed to be an objective source of information. --

With all due respect, lighten up. For goodness' sake, we're all editing in good faith and doing this in our spare time. Irregardless, I disagree with the notion of ignoring very real word connotation for the sake of academic rigor, as illustrated by the "theory" example. -- mattb 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: There is no reason to relax standard of excellence for an encyclopedic entry, and every reason to insist on it.

Good faith editing begins with having access to sources one would edit the presentation of. Over and over again I have observed editors here mangle source material to a point inconsistent and/or contrary to what the source represents. When an editor does this, it is not in good faith. Rather, it is in poor form. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're getting far off topic now and I have no desire to waste words in a debate of opinions on this nebulous thing called objectivity. I'd like to just stick with the actual issues at hand, if you please. -- mattb 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: What? "Nebulous thing called objectivity"? If you think objectivity a nebulous thing then what on earth are you doing editing a work purported as offering objective information? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm only going to discuss the issue at hand now. -- mattb 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: Which issue is, apparently, not one of objectivity from your perspective.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the merits and demerits of these specific phrasings and word choices, not a debate on the very general and subtle issue of how editors with strong viewpoints (such as you and I) can be objective. -- mattb 02:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: I do not consider my viewpoints as particularly strong on this issue. As far as an objective presentation goes, the matter is rather straightforward and simple. What has impinged on arriving at a straightforward and objective presentation is bias and attempts to spin information. How else, for example, can you explain why editors have demonstrated a willingness to edit source material they have neither read nor have access to? The only reason for such action is an effort to spin a presentation to a predetermined end, which is contrary to even the weakest yet acceptable standards of academic product. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Friend, I think that comes dangerously close to an assumption of bad faith and isn't going to yield a productive line of discussion. I'm trying my best to work through this, not to point fingers. -- mattb 03:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mattb: I assume no such thing. Bias, spin and poor editing have many reasons, only one of which is bad faith.

So, how do you explain why editors have demonstrated a willingness to edit source material they have neither read nor have access to? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the actions of whomever it is you refer to. I suggest asking them that question. -- mattb 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on the original edit war that I think sparked this discussion. Fcsuper reverted Marvin and commented in the edit summary that quoting an opinion piece didn't make it verifiable. I think that was not true and even worse not germane. The quote may be verifiable but it may not have been encyclopedic and it was probably against consensus. It's clear that we cannnot make progress here without consensus because there are very committed editors on each side who aren't going anywhere (unlike some articles where waiting a couple of weeks will get some people to move on).

Marvin's edit seems to have been perfectly justified on every grouhd except consensus. Let me repeat that, EXCEPT consensus. What this means is that we need to seek compromise in order to form consensus. Arguments about the quality of the source will be of no avail if there is no consensus.

I think Marvin and other editors should be more flexible and understand that "academic rigor" is hard to find here. There are no authoritative sources which will state in an unchallengeable way that JWs are or are not Christian. JWs are a sect by the definition of sect, plain and simple. If this is perceived as pejorative, then perhaps we should avoid the use of the word if it is not critical to our presentation of the facts.

I also do not see the debate over the text to be worth the amont of time that has been invested in it. I thought we had a compromise in which we would say "JWs are a Christian denomination" and then have a footnote indicating that this assertion is challenged by some Christian groups. What happened to that?

I'm also OK with "JWs are a Christian sect" because it is accurate (JWs are the smaller group that split away from the larger group on grounds of doctrinal dispute). However, the negative connotations of "sect" are likely to make this a magnet for those who object to the word "sect" as being pejorative.

At the end of the day, we need to find a compromise that represents a consensus that we are willing to defend against future challenges. It seems obvious that, no matter what wording we choose, there will be "transient" editors who come along and object to it. The question is... "what wording are the long-term editors of this article willing to agree upon and defend against the more transient editors?"

If we can find no consensus, we will waste many more bytes of discussion and risk more edit wars. This is not a good idea.

--Richard 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The consensus editors should be looking for is one that already exists in the world knowledge base rather than inventing one. What good are secondary and primary sources if they are used only to bolster an invented consensus? These sources must be allowed to speak for themselves for the consensus they represent, otherwise presentations here are no more than a farce.

Academic rigor is always hard, and often hard to find. So are editors of a purported academic presentation supposed to just role over and play dead because of this? Would you have editors ignore universal standards of excellence because other editors fail to grasp or are untrained in academic standards?

Consensus, yes. But this consensus must be found and not invented. We must look for whatever consensus already exists.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted POV edit in opening paragraph

Look folks, I know this is a controversial subject but opening paragraphs should be short, sweet, simple and state basics. It is not constructive to insert statements into the opening paragraph alleging that Some Christian groups consider them heretical. First off, there is a place to discuss criticisms in the article and it ain't in the opening paragraph. inserting a negative characterization such as that in the first paragraph looks like POV pushing even if it wasn't intended that way. JW's are a fairly large group numbering over 6 million now (I believe, it may be higher since I last bothered to check) and it simply isn't fair to them or the subject matter to place an uncited, combative edit such as that in the opening paragraph. If you truly believe they are heretical, or oif you believe lots of other Christians consider them so, gather your reliable sources and documentation and put it in the body of the article. The openeing paragraph is merely an introduction and as such, it should avoid making controversial statements. Many new religious movements are subjected to this kind of treatment in articles and its simply unwikipedian. All we are supoposed to do is describe and document in a balanced way. That statement was neither descriptive, documentary nor was it balanced.LiPollis 00:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Are only positive statements allowed in the intro? I did not label the JWs as heretical but was seeking to note somehow that they are not mainstream. I'm open to other suggestions. If I offended anyone, I apologize. Dtbrown 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement is accurate, fair, and isn't POV pushing. I can't think of any "softer" word to adequately express this point. Several very main stream Christian denominations have been or still are considered heretical by other denominations. Since you removed the statement, can you think of a fairer way of getting the point across that a significant number of Christians consider JW doctrine to be... er... heretical? -- mattb 00:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

LiPollis: I could not agree more. And, I am compelled to add, whatever presentation is used (whether introduction or main text) should be objective sharing of information, which means that subjective assertions are inappropriate.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine - deal with that appropriately in the section set aside for it. The opening paragraph should be simple and direct. There is no need to include an unsourced statement with weasel words such as 'Some people" and/or "Many Christians" who may or may not feel JW's are heretics. I scanned the criticism section and noticed that weasel words abound there too. What has happened to this article? Did wikipedia standards on policy get suspended? You cannot assert a fact that cannot be shown to be a fact. You may not say some aspect of their beliefs or practices are controversial without showing that they are in fact controversial. Wikipedia is not a random collection of opinions; it is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias adhere to certain basic standards. mattb, you say you cannot think of a softer way to state the fact being asserted. You don't have to! Find a source that actually makes that statement and cite it when you discuss the issue in the controversy section. If you can find a reliable source to back up an assertion, it can be included. Also, I think you may find simply using BlockQuote to quote the group or scholar's criticism can be a highly effective way of making your point and adding balance to an article. It can help you to avoid the appearance of having a POV since you are not paraphrasing but only quoting. You may not want to bog the section down with multiple blockquotes but adding one really strong one to make your biggest point could be useful. Try it! Dtbrown , I did not suggest that editors are only allowed to include positive facts. What I did say on your talk page is that asserted facts must be cited from reliable sources. Just leave the opening paragraph alone for now and fix all the weasel statements in the criticism section if you can. That would greatly improve the article. Sections dealing with criticisms are not merely for listing your own impressions of what others may or may not feel. You must document the criticisms you assert with cites from reliable sources. They will have so much more weight if done correctly and I'm guessing from your posts that you want this article to include criticisms of the JW's. Other editors would be within their rights to revert all unsourced assertions of fact and weasel-worded statements. Therefore nailing down those sources will help improve the readability of the article and protect against revertsLiPollis 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

LiPollis: In my case, you are preaching to teh choir. You are spot on with each piece of advice. Now the trick is getting editors to abibe by standards of excellence. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lisapollison, I agree with you about the Criticism and Controversy sections. I have generally stayed away from those sections myself. I think you misread my intention in the opening paragraph. I think the article should place the JWs as part of the Christian movement. Yet there are some Christians who do not want the article to say that. So, I'm seeking some sort of compromise. Dtbrown 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict: Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't need a lecture on Wikipedia's idyllic vision of verifiability. Plenty of sources have been brought up here and on other pages that verify in one way or another the statement in the opening paragraph, and I don't agree with adding fact tags just to illustrate a point about a policy we're all keenly aware of. Statements in the lead that constitute a general introduction and summary don't really need ten footnote refs following them as long as the information they summarize is adequately supported in the article text. On this issue I agree that citation in the criticism section could be improved, but you can make your point without slapping a lot of fact tags around. There's a balance to be struck between verification and ridiculous over-referencing, and this article is already heavy on the refs. -- mattb 01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that assertions of facts, especially negative ones require a source for that fact. Without a source, they are either Original Research or a personal point of view, neither of which is allowed. Source those assertions and the tags come off. They are there to let readers know that they are not verifiable facts...yet. Such tags are important when dealing with controversial subjects. Discussions on talk pages do not replace the purpose of inline citations and references. No, you don't need ten footnote references for an asserted fact, one will do nicely if its from a reliable source. So far, the tagged assertions do not have even that. I suggest that your argument would be better served by sourcing those assertions of fact not supported with references. I also note that it only seems to be negative assertions about JWs that remain unsourced. Would you permit an unsourced assertion of a positive fact about JWs? Historically, that has not been the case with regard to articles about JWs.

In summary - This article needs to come in line with wikipedia standards. It is presently lacking in that department. The best way to fix it is to either delete unsourced negative statements or work towards sourcing them. I favor sourcing them. Sadly, the tagged asstertions are sufficiently vague as to prevent me from trying to suss out their origins. Perhaps those who added them in can reveal where they grabbed those facts. If help is needed with inline cites, I have made myself available to other editors and repeat the offer. Leave me a note with a link oin my talk page and the statement it is sourcing. I will work to help you get the statement in if it meets wikipeida standards. If such sources are not provided for the problematic assertions in a few weeks or months (I favor giving editors time) they may be subject to deletion by any editor.LiPollis 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mm hm. So go ahead and delete the uncited information; I have no particular fondness for the criticism section. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for some anonymous or new editors to pop up demanding that the information be added back. -- mattb 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is six million worldwide "small in number"?

The current introductory paragraphs have been edited to state that JW's are small in number. Is that the general consenus here? Admittedly, I have a few years old data sheet, but it quotes them as having 6 million baptized members with over 20 million in regular attendence at the annual memorial. How much larger in number do they need to be to escape being labelled "Small in number"? Just asking cuz there are a few hundred way smaller Christian sects that might "benefit" from similar negative characterizations and hammering over theologiocal differences.(see Sarcasm) Incidentally, non-belief in the Trinity is also not unique to JWs but you don't get that impression from the opening paragraphs. If editors want to make an issue out of their nontrinitarian stance that's fine, just make a section for, find some reliable sources for the facts and positions you wish to assert and edit away. It really would serve the article better if editors avoided trying to topic stuff the introductory paragraphs and just leave the big issues to the pre-existing sections created to handle such topics. I realize that editors with more in-depth knowledge have given up on this article due to disputes and fatigue but that doesn't mean we should just throw in the towel and give up trying to keep this article honest in terms of its language and assertions. Please work WITH me. A balanced article is not one that says what editors feel it is one that says what can be shown to be factual and one that avoids sweeping generalaizations and mischaracterizations LiPollis 05:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Er... Have you noticed that the entire lead section is in a constant state of flux right now due to editing disputes? Thanks for the pep talk, but frankly the most persistant person in the room always gets their way on Wikipedia (c.f. the article text during the Tommstein/Central days). We'll just see how it turns out this time 'round. -- mattb 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Organizational Structure Edit

Marvin, your most recent edit [3] is an interesting observation but JWs would not say that the two female members of the Board were actually Governing Body members. I think the edit, as it stands, is misleading. Are you attempting to point out what you think is a contradiction? Dtbrown 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I am tired of repling to these sorts of remarks. Clearly you do not have access to the referenced material, and neither have you read it. So why do you write the objection you do? How can you possible object to something you have not read yourself? Can you explain this so I can understand?

For your information, the Watchtower has expressly stated (in the given reference material, no less!) that the 1884 board of directors constituted the Governing Body overseeing the worldwide preaching of God's kingdom.

It is no wonder the bickering I see on this page.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the articles. I actually made a PDF of the 1894 Watchtower article and I checked the 1999 Watchtower article on the WT Library CD-ROM. You may have pointed out an interesting conflict but I wonder if that is necessary to the article. The Witness' position would be that Governing Body members would need to be men. Dtbrown 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: If you read this material prior to asking the question you do above, then why did you ask it knowing perfectly well that the Watchtower stipulated the then board of directors as Governing Body?

If a reader wants the detail you suggest then all they have to do is go the more detailed Governing Body article where I have taken care to make sure the detail you mention is included. As for conflict, I have pointed to no conflict as you suggest. I have presented verifiable information without spinning it to a preferential end.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the question was regarding whether the information is true, but whether it's necessary to include in the article. I think it's an extraneous (though interesting) detail that we don't need. -- mattb 05:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Dtbrown 05:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb and Dtbrown: Extraneous? How on earth can you think it extraneous for a section addressing the organizational structure of an organization to open with a depiction of the organization's initial central authority as depicted by the very organization under discussion? Please explain.-- Marvin Shilmer 06:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some historians who would characterize the idea of a "Governing Body" back in Russell's day as anachronistic. That may be the theological view expressed in the 1999 Watchtower but I'm not sure we can say that's NPOV. Dtbrown 06:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your editing predilection is a bit inconsistent, isn’t it? Because Jehovah’s Witnesses profess themselves as Christian you would have the article assert Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Yet when Jehovah’s Witnesses profess what they consider to be their initial Governing Body you balk at the notion of stating who Jehovah’s Witnesses profess as their initial Governing Body. Please explain this inconsistency.

BTW, “some historians” is weasel language.-- Marvin Shilmer 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel language is not an issue for me on Talk pages. If this is an inconsistency (which I don't think it is) it applies to both of us. You are just as willing to accept the JW profession about their initial Governing Body so that you can point out a contradiction.

That JWs are part of the Christian movement is obvious. Dtbrown 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No. I am not inconsistant as you are. You see a profession of faith and assert a fact of faith, whereas I see a profession of faith and assert a profession of faith. You see a profession of Governing Body and assert a profession of Governing Body is inappropriate, whereas I see a profession of Governing Body and assert a profession of Governing Body is appropriate. Please do not confuse your actions as my own.

The Jehovah's Witnesses profess they are a Christian movement (or, part of a Christian movement) is obvious and demonstrable.-- Marvin Shilmer 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, Thanks for your responses tonight. I'll await other responses to these subjects. Dtbrown 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I wish you would reciprocate by answering for your complaints. You apparently have plenty of time to voice objections but little time to answer for them upon request. Please explain.-- Marvin Shilmer 07:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should let other editors weigh in. Dtbrown 08:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Marvin's edit should stand. It's sourced. It's not disputed as to its truth. Its relevant from a historical standpoint and it also sheds light on any controversy regarding the JW doctrine that the Governing Board should be men. If JW doctrine on the Governing body has changed, it may be worthwhile to document that. If it is the subject of controversy, we should document that. If "some historians view the idea of a "Governing Body" back in Russell's day as anachronistic", we may wish to document that. --Richard 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: What is happening here that editors have so little regard (no respect whatsoever in some cases) for verified material. I have spent considerable time in the last few days contributing to reduce the hubris and bickering on this subject. The contribution was to build presentation with solid secondary and primary source verification. Yet editors have received this treatment as though I have vandalized the subject! Some have deleted verified presentation without even having the referenced material to know if it were verified, which means they acted solely on their personal opinion. Other editors have refrained from deleting referenced material, but have done something worse by asserting it somewhere else in the article where it was actually used way out of context. This is so bizarre it is surreal. Any insights? -- Marvin Shilmer 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My insight is that you should "take a pill and chill". What you say in the above comment is very likely true at least in some instances. (How's that for weaseling?)

This is a very difficult article to edit because of the strong diametrically opposed opinions and the resultant difficult (sometimes seemingly impossible) task of forming consensus. It must really raise your blood pressure sometimes. I know this situation. I've been there while editing other articles of a similar nature. I appreciate your dedication to academic and scholarly integrity. On the other hand, in the interest of your emotional and physical health, I urge you to step away from the keyboard, calm down and "get a grip". Then come back and seek consensus however galling that may be.

Present your sources here on the Talk Page first and explain why the statement should be in the article. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it should be in the article. Think of an article as a tour guide at the top of a high vista point. The tour guide points out interesting and worthwhile features of the landscape. We are proscribed from adding material that is unsourced. However, the job of an encyclopedia editor is to pick from the vast sea of sources and provide a neutral but valuable summary of the "sum of human knowledge". Our job here is to convince the editors of this page what additional points are worth making that will help readers understand the topic.

--Richard 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: My blood pressure is fine, and so is my health in general. But you bit of advice is well taken.

Perhaps the real mistake is my own, thinking individuals interested in encyclopedic editing enough to join the Wiki project would also have a healthy regard for reputable and vetted material as a resource from which to build knowledge and avoid bias presentation. The atmosphere around here puts reputable academic sources in a back seat, if not in the trunk, when it disagrees with the spin of one editor or another. It is offensive to see people behave like this. We are reducing the knowledge base when we present spin as material knowledge. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)