Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 34

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Methodical Research of Vetted Sources, Consensus Declaring JWs Christian?

Latest comment: 16 years ago59 comments5 people in discussion

Here is another research effort I began today. As time permits I will examine all 85 of the sources found in this methodical search and report details. As a primer, below I express the search tool employed and criteria.

Research tool: EBSCO Host Research Databases, Academic Search Premier

Search for: “Jehovah’s Witnesses” in Subject Terms

Limit search to: Peer reviewed

Limit search to: Full text sources

Publication type: All

Document type: Article

Results 1-20 of 85:

1. Transfusion-Free Cardiac Reoperation in an 11-kg Jehovah's Witness Child. By: Huebler, Michael; Boettcher, Wolfgang; Koster, Andreas; Stiller, Brigitte; Kuppe, Hermann; Hetzer, Roland. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 2007, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p108-111

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

2. Cults, Sects & Oddities. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, Dec2006, Vol. 19 Issue 10, p57-58

- ARticle states, “Catholics in the Polish archdiocese of Poznan have been warned about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are “members of a non-Christian community who do not recognize the dogmas of Holy Trinity or Incarnation and propose a false path to life and salvation.””

- Author is quoting a Catholic position.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses in National Socialist concentration camps, 1933 – 45*. By: Wrobel, Johannes. Religion, State & Society, Jun2006, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p89-125

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since 1966 Wrobel has been head of the Watchtower History Archive of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Watchtower headquarters in Germany.

4. ‘All over the world Jehovah's Witnesses are the touchstone for the existence of true democracy’: Persecution of a religious minority in the German Democratic Republic *. By: Dirksen, Hans-Hermann. Religion, State & Society, Jun2006, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p127-143

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working at the Watchtower headquarters in Germany.

5. Surviving the Stasi: Jehovah's Witnesses in Communist East Germany, 1965 to 1989 *. By: Dennis, Mike. Religion, State & Society, Jun2006, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p145-168

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

6. Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany: Prisoners during the Communist Era *. By: Wrobel, Johannes. Religion, State & Society, Jun2006, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p169-190

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as Bible-oriented religious organization… teaching the first-century Christian belief.

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since 1966 Wrobel has been head of the Watchtower History Archive of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Watchtower headquarters in Germany.

7. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses under Two Dictatorships *. By: Dirksen, Annegret. Religion, State & Society, Jun2006, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p191-210

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as teaching Christian neutrality.

- The author is wife to Hans-Hermann Dirksen (a Jehovah’s Witness and attorney for the Watchtower organization) and she is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses working at Watchtower headquarters in Germany.

8. The care of a child with multiple trauma and severe anemia who was a Jehovah's Witness. By: Digieri, Luciana Andrea; Pistelli, Ivan Pollastrini; de Carvalho, Cid Eduardo. Hematology, Jun2006, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p187-191

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

9. ‘MENACING BUILDINGS’: Former political prisons and prisoners in eastern Germany. By: Gallinat, Anselma. Anthropology Today, Apr2006, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p19-20

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

10. Journal scan. By: Tindale, Rabina. Emergency Nurse, Dec2005, Vol. 13 Issue 8, p8-9

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

11. Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation. By: Louderback-Wood, Kerry. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2005, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p783-822

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author was raised in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a young adult she left affiliation. Louderback-Wood is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

12. Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors. By: Herrera, C. D.. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2005, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p823-839

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

13. Notes on Church-State Affairs. By: Hendon, David W.; Gonzales, Gabrielle. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2005, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p901-913

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

14. NOTES ON CHURCH-STATE AFFAIRS. By: Hendon, David W.; Lynn, Nathan R.. Journal of Church & State, Summer2005, Vol. 47 Issue 3, p655-672

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

15. A Jehovah's Witness with Complex Abdominal Trauma and Coagulopathy: Use of Factor VII and a Review of the Literature. By: Haan, James; Scalea, Thomas. American Surgeon, May2005, Vol. 71 Issue 5, p414-415

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

16. To Do or Not to Do Living Donor Hepatectomy in Jehovah's Witnesses: Single Institution Experience of the First 13 Resections. By: Jabbour, Nicolas; Gagandeep, Singh; Bramstedt, Katrina A.; Brenner, Megan; Mateo, Rodrigo; Selby, Rick; Genyk, Yuri. American Journal of Transplantation, May2005, Vol. 5 Issue 5, p1141-1145

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

17. Jehovah's Witness children: when religion and the law collide. By: Wilson, Phil. Paediatric Nursing, Apr2005, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p34-37

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

18. Recombinant Human Coagulation Factor Vila in Jehovah's Witness Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation. By: Jabbour, Nicolas; Gagandeep, Singh; Cheng, Peilin Alice; Boland, Brendan; Mateo, Rod; Genyk, Yuri; Selby, Rick; Zeger, Gary. American Surgeon, Feb2005, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p175-179

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

19. "WRITING THEIR FAITH INTO THE LAWS OF THE LAND:" JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE SUPREME COURT'S BATTLE FOR THE MEANING OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, 1939-1945. By: Flynn, Patrick J.. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, Winter2004, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p1-35

- Depict religious disposition as a millenniallist sect

20. Cultural democracies and human rights: conditions for religious freedom in modern Greece. By: Stamoulas, Aristotelis. Journal of Human Rights, Dec2004, Vol. 3 Issue 4, p477-497

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

Results:

Of the 20 articles above,

1 article depicts the religion as non-Christian. But this is a known biased source and the declaration should be discounted accordingly.

1 article depicts the religion as a millenniallist sect.

4 articles depict the religion as Christian. But in each of these 4 cases the authors hold a known bias and their declaration of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian should be discounted accordingly. Each of these 3 authors are Jehovah’s Witnesses and each is housed and works full time at the Watchtower headquarters in Germany. (One of the 3 authors wrote 2 of the articles above)

14 articles do not declare or depict the religion as Christian. 1 of these 14 authors (Louderback-Wood) is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization and her failure to declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian should be discounted accordingly.

By means of the above research method disclosure editors here can reconstruct this research at any well-funded library.

Any questions? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since these are peer reviewed publications, why do we discount based upon supposed "bias"? Also, are these articles discussing the issue of how to classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion? Dtbrown 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You ask good questions, and I am glad to see you interacting with the evidence.

When vetted journals invite or accept articles from sources with conflicts of interest to the subject they allow a decent measure of editorial leeway to the author so long as the conflict is either declared by the author or the journal makes the disclosure as a standard practice.

So, for instance, in the case of author Johannes Wrobel, as a standard practice the editor of Religion, State & Society published a Notes On Contributors statement expressing Wrobel’s conflict of interest to the subject by advising readers of his position with the Watchtower organization. Other journals require the author to self-disclose. So, for example, when Carolyn Way writes on the subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the Journal of Church and State she discloses her position as associate general counsel for the Watchtower organization. These disclosures are precisely for the purpose of informing readers there is a probable bias by the author (in relation to the subject) that may be overt or subtle, and the text should be read accordingly.

Please note that to discount the material value does not mean researchers should dismiss the presentation. In my case, I have often cited authors such as Wah, Ridley, Smalley, Wrobel and other Watchtower biased writers because there is much information in their research that is demonstrably viable and accordingly valuable for research.

The methodology of this particular research attempts to avoid poisoning the well of usage of “Christian” by opening the search up to all instances where Jehovah’s Witnesses are the primary subject matter to see how a wide range of vetted material present this specific religious peoples.

In the past I have done a search specifically isolating how vetted presentations “classified” Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion. Unfortunately the greatest amount of this sort of literature tends to be of a theological nature and, as you can imagine, it is difficult to sort out the rancor and bias. Jehovah’s Witnesses say what they say and a vast majority of everybody else assert Witnesses are practically the spawn of Satan. (A little sarcasm, but you know what I mean) There are relatively few instances of moderate presentations, but I find these along the lines of what I have already presented from the wider range of sources. These moderate sources tend not to classify/declare so much as they undertake to depict the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Particularly this latter approach is, in my opinion, the most beneficial way to present any religion. Researchers are not interested in declarations. They are interested in learning about the religious doctrine and history. When the learned reader sees declarations ‘right out of the box’ a red flag immediately waggles that perhaps the authorship is not very objective. -- Marvin Shilmer 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Research continued:

Results 21-40 of 85:

21. God's things and Caesar's: Jehovah's Witnesses and political neutrality. By: Chu, Jolene. Journal of Genocide Research, Sep2004, Vol. 6 Issue 3, p319-342

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a researcher working in the Writing Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

22. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms. By: Henderson, Jennifer Jacobs. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2004, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p811-832

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

23. “Jehovah Will Provide”: Lillian Gobitas and Freedom of Religion. By: Van Orden, James F.. Journal of Supreme Court History, 2004, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p136-144

- Depict Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious sect in an endnote. Main text does not declare or depict religious disposition

24. Large volume polymerized haemoglobin solution in a Jehovah's Witness following abruptio placentae. By: Cothren, C. C.; Moore, E. E.; Long, J. S.; Haenel, J. B.; Johnson, J. L.; Ciesla, D. J.. Transfusion Medicine, Jun2004, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p241-246

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

25. Tailored therapy of adult acute leukaemia in Jehovah's Witnesses: unjustified reluctance to treat. By: Laszlo, Daniele; Agazzi, Alberto; Goldhirsch, Aron; Cinieri, Saverio; Bertolini, Francesco; Rabascio, Cristina; Pruneri, Giancarlo; Calabrese, Liliana; Cocquio, Angela; Martinelli, Giovanni. European Journal of Haematology, Apr2004, Vol. 72 Issue 4, p264-267

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian movement

26. A 44-Year-Old Jehovah's Witness With Life-Threatening Anemia From Uterine Bleeding. By: Hashem, Bassam; Dillard, Thomas A.. CHEST, Mar2004, Vol. 125 Issue 3, p1151-1154

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

27. Myeloablative therapy and bone marrow transplantation in Jehovah's Witnesses with malignancies: single center experience. By: Mazza, P; Prudenzano, A; Amurri, B; Palazzo, G; Pisapia, G; Stani, L; Pricolo, G. Bone Marrow Transplantation, Aug2003, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p433-436

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

28. Transfusion-free reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic stem cell transplantation in a Jehovah's witness. By: Zenz, T; Döhner, H; Bunjes, D. Bone Marrow Transplantation, Aug2003, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p437-438

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

29. HAEMATOLOGICAL CARE OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS PATIENT*. By: Marsh, Judith C.W.; Bevan, David H.. British Journal of Haematology, Oct2002, Vol. 119 Issue 1, p25

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

30. THE USE OF RECOMBINANT FACTOR VIIA IN A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS WITH AUTO-IMMUNE THROMBOCYTOPENIA AND POST-SPLENECTOMY HAEMORRHAGE. By: Waddington, Dominic P.; McAuley, Frank T.; Hanley, John P.; Summerfield, Geoffrey P.. British Journal of Haematology, Oct2002, Vol. 119 Issue 1, p286

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

31. Jehovah's Witnesses under Communist Regimes. By: Dirksen, Hans Hermann. Religion, State & Society, Sep2002, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p229-238

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working at the Watchtower headquarters in Germany.

32. Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Georgia Today. By: Ochs, Michael. Religion, State & Society, Sep2002, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p239-276

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

33. Papa Was a Jehovah's Witness. By: D'Haene, Donald. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, Jul/Aug2002, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p24

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

34. NOTES ON CHURCH-STATE AFFAIRS. By: Hendon, David W.; Holton, Kevin. Journal of Church & State, Summer2002, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p599

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

35. Repair of hypoplastic left heart syndrome of a 4.25-kg Jehovah's witness. By: Forest, RJ; Groom, RC; Quinn, R; Donnelly, J; Clark, C. Perfusion, May2002, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p221-225

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

36. A Point of Contention:: The Scriptural Basis for the Jehovah'sWitnesses' Refusal of Blood Transfusions. By: Spencer, R.. Christian Bioethics, Apr2002, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p63

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

37. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Empire of the Sun: A Clash of Faith and Religion During World War II. By: Wah, Carolyn R.. Journal of Church & State, Winter2002, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p45

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

38. NOTES ON CHURCH-STATE AFFAIRS. Journal of Church & State, Winter2002, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p188

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

39. Sn-Mesoporphyrin Interdiction of Severe Hyperbilirubinemia in Jehovah's Witness Newborns as an Alternative to Exchange Transfusion. By: Kappas, Attallah; Drummond, George S.; Munson, David P.; Marshall, James R.. Pediatrics, Dec2001, Vol. 108 Issue 6, p1374

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

40. Use of desmopressin and erythropoietin in an anaemic Jehovah's Witness patient with severely impaired coagulation capacity undergoing stentless aortic valve replacement. By: Beholz, S.; Liu, J.; Thoelke, R.; Spiess, C.; Konertz, W.. Perfusion, Nov2001, Vol. 16 Issue 6, p485-489

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

Results:

5 depict the religion as Christian. 3 of these 5 authors hold a known bias and should be discounted accordingly.

15 Do not declare or depict the religion as Christian. -- Marvin Shilmer 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Marvin, for this survey. I think the problem arises how to weight those which 'do not declare or depict as Christian.' That could be incidental to the presentation, unless the article in question has that under consideration. Say, for example, we did a survey of similar articles on another religion (Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, or even Roman Catholic), how could we weight those articles mention of whether those religions were Christian or not? Is the absence intentional? Or, is it incidental? Dtbrown 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Again I appreciate your interaction with the information. Your questions are precisely on point.

The presentation of information above is primarily to provide an unvarnished look at how vetted material depicts a religious group when the subject is specifically about that group. This is important to weighing the information presented in relation to that group. The methodology above makes it absolutely impossible for me (in this case) to manipulate information in a biased manner. Though the extracted information above is brief and simple, this does not mean the articles failed to point out the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in some cases of other religions mentioned incidentally in the presentations. Even the medical articles tend to have an overview addressing the religious beliefs.

There is not a comparison to make in relation to mainstream religious organizations precisely because one is mainstream and the other (Jehovah’s Witnesses) is not. Baptist, for example, is a mainstream Protestant religion and precisely because of this it is unnecessary these days to declare the religion as Christian, or even to express its belief in Christianity. Basically, when contemporaries address mainstream religions the literature assumes readers are aware of the religious disposition, so they hardly address it, if they mention it at all beyond citing the religion. In the case of medical journals you find hardly any mention of Baptists compared to the extent Jehovah’s Witnesses are discussed (for, I believe, obvious reason). On the other hand, the question you ask of, for example, Seventh Day Adventists, is on point because like Jehovah’s Witnesses this religion is somewhere at the fringe one way or another. The findings for Seventh Day Adventists are nearly identical to those for Jehovah’s Witnesses with the method used above. The failure to declare these religions as Christian is too consistent to be incidental. I say this because all these documents address the religious nature of the religion(s) but rather than letting readers assume things about the religion the presentations take time to express the beliefs precisely because they are not mainstream and readers have to be informed. This is the consensus I find, and it is twofold. Overwhelmingly, the peer reviewed sources 1) refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian and 2) consistently express the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including their profession of Christianity. Consistency of this magnitude is not incidental. It is a respectful (and objective) means of conveying verifiable information to readers. These authors can verify professions of faith. But it is entirely subjective to assert a religion as Christian, or as non-Christian. Hence authors express the verifiable rather than the subjective. This is what researchers are looking for.

Looking forward on this project I have decided against presenting results 41-85 because reading the material shows the same trend of results 1-40. Time is short, and keyboarding more of the same is, at this point, an act of redundancy. The 40 sources are sufficient to show the results, and the method is declared for pursuit of verification. Instead I am moving on to a related research effort and presentation that seeks and expresses findings of literature with a narrower focus. If you have a suggested method I am happy to consider it. My intent is to search a more extensive database but with a narrower focus. The narrower focus will look for presentations where religious disposition is more likely to be declared. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you for the list of 80 sources that you reviewed. I always trusted that you had done the research diligently and conscientiously. However, it helps me to understand more clearly what your assertions have been based on. With respect to Dtbrown's queries regarding other religions, I wonder what would happen if you applied your methodology to a religion such as the Mormons. Is there a consensus to describe the Mormons as Christian or not? I ask this because you drew a distinction between mainstream denominations such as the Baptists which are presumed to be Christian and non-mainstream sects such as the JWs who are not presumed to be Christian. It seems to me that the Mormon religion is the other obvious candidate against which to test your methodology.

In another vein, I think it would be useful to determine if there are any official pronouncements regarding the declaration of JWs as being or not being Christian. Is there anything close to an official pronouncement from the Catholic Church or any of the mainstream Protestant denominations? How about from an Orthodox source? I think it is less informative for us to "decide" whether JWs are or are not Christian. I think it is more informative to advise the reader as to the consensus among non-JW Christian denominations and in the academic community.

Your argument so far has only discussed whether the JWs are or are not referred to as Christian. It does not provide any depth to the suggestion that they might not be Christian. I think it is important to discuss who does not consider them Christian and why.

P.S. I disagree with Duffer1 that this does not belong in the lead but I have only so much energy for edit-warring so I'm not going to take that one on at this time.

--Richard 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Regarding the same research method with Mormons, the result is similar. Very few academic presenters are willing to declare the religion as Christian. The consensus is to refrain from declaring the religion as Christian (or as non-Christian) and instead to declare the religion’s profession of faith.

Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, the consensus of the research above is to refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as either Christian or as non-Christian. The consensus is to refrain from either declaration and instead to declare the religion’s profession of faith (i.e., Christianity). The former are hotly debated and impossible to verify objectively, whereas the latter is indubitable and easy to verify. This is typical of vetted presentations. The writers want to be taken seriously, and publishers want their journals/reference works taken seriously. Hence vetting protocols look for verification and objectivity and discourage bald opinion and subjectivity. In the case of an author with a conflict of interest to the subject, often these authors are invited to contribute precisely to educate the researcher on their perspective, including whatever bias is part of that perspective. But even then there is academic standard the author is held to, such as disclosure of conflict of interest, proper citation of references et al.

Regarding assumptions about mainstream Christian religions in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses, though authors tend to assume readers are familiar with the mainstream status of major Protestant religions the same authors do not write under an assumption Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. Again, the consensus is not to assume/declare either way (Christian or non-Christian).

As for official pronouncements, there is a boatload of official pronouncement from religious entities such as the Catholic Church and other mainstream religions. Just as Jehovah’s Witnesses freely declare other religions as non-Christian so to mainstream religions freely declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian. When it comes to a religious disposition, probably the most unreliable source of objective information is that of a competing religion. As I tried to express above to Dtbrown (and on other numerous occasions to other editors), it is very difficult, if not impossible, to separate self-promotion from the otherwise objective presentations from these sources. The rancor and rhetoric is so thick as to make such sources nearly impossible to use for this research. – Marvin Shilmer 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New search:

The following research shows results of a methodology intended to seek source material that would tend to declare religious disposition, if there is a tendency to make such a declaration. Compared to the method above, this search examines a broader base of data, but the search parameters were to narrow the focus.

Research tool: GALE Academic Onefile

Search for: “Religion” in Keywords

Search for: “Jehovah” in Keywords

Limit search to: Peer reviewed journals

Limit search to: Full text sources

Results 1-12 of 12:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation. By: Louderback-Wood, Kerry. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2005, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p783-822

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author was raised in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a young adult she left affiliation. Louderback-Wood is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

2. Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors. By: Herrera, C. D.. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2005, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p823-839

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

3. Constitutional conversations and new religious movements: a comparative case study.Leigh Hunt Greenhaw and Michael H. Koby. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38.3 (May 2005): p615

- Depicts religious disposition as millennial authoritarian new religious movement indigenous American form of Protestant Christianity

4. "WRITING THEIR FAITH INTO THE LAWS OF THE LAND:" JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE SUPREME COURT'S BATTLE FOR THE MEANING OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, 1939-1945. By: Flynn, Patrick J.. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, Winter2004, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p1-35

- Depict religious disposition as a millenniallist sect

5. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms. By: Henderson, Jennifer Jacobs. Journal of Church & State, Autumn2004, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p811-832

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

6. “Jehovah Will Provide”: Lillian Gobitas and Freedom of Religion. By: Van Orden, James F.. Journal of Supreme Court History, 2004, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p136-144

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious sect in an endnote. Main text does not declare or depict religious disposition

7. The religious activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned in Moscow, allegedly for destroying families and fostering hatred, in a decision that critics call a step back for democracy and religious freedom, the Associated Press reported.(Briefly noted)(Brief Article). The Christian Century 121.9 (May 4, 2004): p19

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

8. Witnessing the future? (religion of Jehovah's Witnesses).Andrew Holden. Sociology 36.1 (Feb 2002): p28

- Declared Jehovah’s Witnesses puritanical, authoritarian and conservative Millenarian movement

9. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Empire of the Sun: A Clash of Faith and Religion During World War II. By: Wah, Carolyn R.. Journal of Church & State, Winter2002, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p45

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

10. The persecution of West Virginia Jehovah's Witnesses and the expansion of legal protection for religious liberty.Chuck Smith. Journal of Church and State 43.3 (Summer 2001): p539

- Declared Jehovah’s Witnesses as an apocalyptic sect

11. Jehovah's Witnesses and the responsibility of religious freedom: the European experience.Carolyn R. Wah. Journal of Church and State 43.3 (Summer 2001): p579

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

12. Sect-state relations: accounting for the differing trajectories of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.Ronald Lawson. Sociology of Religion 56.n4 (Winter 1995): pp351

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Seventh-Day Adventists) as apocalyptic Christian sect with pre-millennial expectations

Results:

2 articles depict the religion as Christian. Both of these 2 articles are written by the same author (Wah), and she holds a known bias. The articles should be discounted accordingly.

2 articles depict the religion as Christian with stipulations. (I.e., new religious movement, apocalyptic sect)

8 articles do not declare or depict the religion as Christian. 1 of these 8 authors (Louderback-Wood) is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization and her failure to declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian should be discounted accordingly. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you've done quite a bit of research. Of the results that indicate any religious disposition, they are almost universally indicated as Christian. Only 1 obviously biased source states them to be non-Christian. Of the sources that do not indicate any religious disposition, these also do not indicate JWs to be non-Christian. Most of the sources that do not indicate religious disposition are medical articles, in which case such affiliation is irrelevant and superfluous to the context of the article, and indicating any religious disposition in such articles could imply bias that is not appropriate in scientific material. Note also that millennialists are a subgroup of Christians. The results of your research are consistent with their basic beliefs which plainly indicate them to be a Christian religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Yes. I have done an enormous amount of research on this subject, and it is all testable to avoid any remote suspicion of personal bias. See my response below to Richard stamped “Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)” -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As a lesson in why sources with bias should be discounted, consider the following:

Author Carolyn Wah is an attorney for the Watchtower organization, and she is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In her article Jehovah's Witnesses and the responsibility of religious freedom: the European experience, Carolyn Wah states, “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement (NRM), although they are exclusively religious.”

Wah’s assertion is first based on the “Netherlands Enquete Commission” report from 1998. (Wah mistakenly calls this the Netherlands Enquete Commission. The Commission was of the German Parliament.) Of that report, Wah states, “the Commission declined to include Jehovah’s Witnesses in their investigations”. Wah’s statement is misleading because she fails to express the Commission’s failure to find Jehovah’s Witnesses as a NRM is politically motivated rather than academically motivated. From an academic perspective the very same report stipulates that Jehovah’s Witnesses are among “some of the new religious movements which are better known to the public”.

To further underpin her assertion that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement” Wah refers to a published academic author and states, “According to Eileen Barker, an NRM is a relatively new organization that has become ‘visible in its present form since the Second World War.’” But rather than quoting Eileen Barker (or any reputable scholar) to the end that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a new religious organization, instead Wah interprets a remark by Barker as though Barker expressly agrees that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement”. As it turns out, Eileen Barker believes Jehovah’s Witnesses are a new religious movement. Barker is widely published, and her views today on Jehovah’s Witnesses have not wavered from her published views. Yet in an interview in 2005 Barker specifically names Jehovah’s Witnesses as a new religious movement she admires. (Taylor, L, Defender of faiths: Laurie Taylor interviews Eileen Barker, The Humanist, Volume 120 Issue 3 May/June 2005) Hence, as it turns out, author Eileen Barker does not agree with Wah that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement.

So, author Wah cites two sources to underpin her statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement. Of one source she happily points to lack of a political finding yet fails to point out the same source finds a common result at odds with her statement. Of the second source Wah reads her own interpretation into the words of an academic author rather than seeking an outright statement to substantiate her outright assertion. As it turns out, in both cases Wah’s statement that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement” is driven by her preferential perspective rather than the evidence she offers. What makes this more egregious from an academic perspective is that her entire article is premised on her assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a new religious movement, which assertion is at best shaky and at worst false. This sort of authorship really turns off the pure academic. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional search:

Research tool: GALE Academic Onefile

Search for: “Jehovah” in Keywords

Limit search to: Peer reviewed journals

Limit search to: Full text sources

Publication subject [limiter]: "Religion" OR "Religious Education" OR "Religious History"

Results 1-37 of 37:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution.(Book review).Kevin P. Spicer. Church History 75.1 (March 2006): p203(3).

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

2. Jehovah's Witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation.Kerry Louderback-Wood. Journal of Church and State 47.4 (Autumn 2005): p783(40).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author was raised in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a young adult she left affiliation. Louderback-Wood is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

3. Disputes between state and religion over medical treatment for minors. C.D. Herrera. Journal of Church and State 47.4 (Autumn 2005): p823(17).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

4. Notes on church-state affairs. David W. Hendon and Gabrielle Gonzales. Journal of Church and State 47.4 (Autumn 2005): p901(13).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

5. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics Under Persecution.(Book Review).Richard Singelenberg. Journal of Church and State 47.3 (Summer 2005): p626(2).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

6. Notes on church-state affairs. David W. Hendon and Nathan R. Lynn. Journal of Church and State 47.3 (Summer 2005): p655(18).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

7. Notes on church-state affairs. David W. Hendon and Jeremiah Russell. Journal of Church and State 47.2 (Spring 2005): p421(13).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

8. The Jehovah's Witnesses and their plan to expand first amendment freedoms. Jennifer Jacobs Henderson. Journal of Church and State 46.4 (Autumn 2004): p811(22).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

9. Repression und Selbstbehauptung: Die Zeugen Jehovas unter der NS- und der SED-Diktatur.(Book Review).Richard Singelenberg. Journal of Church and State 46.4 (Autumn 2004): p894(3).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

10. The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education, and Parental Rights.(Book Review).Ronald B. Flowers. Journal of Church and State 46.1 (Wntr 2004): p158(2).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- This article returns in this search purely because of citing an author’s credentials. The article itself has little to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

11. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics.(Festschrift).TL Beauchamp. Journal of Medical Ethics 29.5 (Oct 2003): p269(6).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

12. Applying the four principles. R Macklin. Journal of Medical Ethics 29.5 (Oct 2003): p275(6).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

13. Juggling law, ethics, and intuition: practical answers to awkward questions. A Sommerville. Journal of Medical Ethics 29.5 (Oct 2003): p281(6).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

14. Principlism and communitarianism. (Festschrift).D Callahan. Journal of Medical Ethics 29.5 (Oct 2003): p287(5).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

15. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Empire of the sun: a clash of faith and religion during World War II.Carolyn R. Wah. Journal of Church and State 44.1 (Wntr 2002): p45(28).

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

16. Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. Chuck E. Smith. Journal of Church and State 44.1 (Wntr 2002): p166(2).

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as sectarians

17. Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. (Brief Article).HELEN M DESCOMBES. Journal of Medical Ethics 27.5 (Oct 2001): p355.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

18. The persecution of West Virginia Jehovah's Witnesses and the expansion of legal protection for religious liberty. Chuck Smith. Journal of Church and State 43.3 (Summer 2001): p539.

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as an apocalyptic sect

19. Jehovah's Witnesses and the responsibility of religious freedom: the European experience. Carolyn R. Wah. Journal of Church and State 43.3 (Summer 2001): p579.

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

20. Treatment of patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses. PAUL WADE. Journal of Medical Ethics 27.2 (April 2001): p137.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. At the time of writing Paul Wade held the position of Director of Hospital Information Services at the Watchtower organization’s offices in Britain. (Wade may still hold this position) This is an extremely brief article, so brief that its lack of making any declaratory depiction of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is probably of little value in this research.

21. Jehovah's Witnesses--the blood transfusion taboo. RICHARD SINGELENBERG. Journal of Medical Ethics 27.2 (April 2001): p138.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- This is an extremely brief article, so brief that its lack of making any declaratory depiction of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is probably of little value in this research.

22. Jehovah's Witnesses' request for recognition as a corporation under public law in Germany: background, current status, and empirical aspects. Gerhard Besier and Renate-Maria Besier. Journal of Church and State 43.1 (Wntr 2001): p35.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

23. JUDGING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.(Review). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (Nov 2000): p66.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- This is an extremely brief article, so brief that its lack of making any declaratory depiction of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is probably of little value in this research.

24. Refusal of potentially life-saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses: should doctors explain that not all JWs think it's religiously required?. Raanan Gillon. Journal of Medical Ethics 26.5 (Oct 2000): p299.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

25. Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy. Lee Elder. Journal of Medical Ethics 26.5 (Oct 2000): p375.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

26. Medical confidentiality and the protection of Jehovah's Witnesses' autonomous refusal of blood. Osamu Muramoto. Journal of Medical Ethics 26.5 (Oct 2000): p381.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

27. Zeugen Jehovas in der DDR. Verfolgung und Verhalten einer religiosen Minderheit. (Review).Richard Singelenberg. Journal of Church and State 42.3 (Summer 2000): p574.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

28. Jehovah's Witnesses. A Comprehensive and Selectively Annotated Bibliography.(Review). Richard Singelenberg. Sociology of Religion 61.1 (Spring 2000): p114.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

29. The Second Coming of Jesus. MARTIN GARDNER. Skeptical Inquirer 24.1 (Jan 2000): p9.

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as fringe sect

30. Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: part 3. A proposal for a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Osamu Muramoto. Journal of Medical Ethics 25.6 (Dec 1999): p463.

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

- The author is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine.

31. Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood: obedience to scripture and religious conscience. Donald T Ridley. Journal of Medical Ethics 25.6 (Dec 1999): p469.

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian

- The author is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a lawyer working in the Legal Department at the world headquarters of Watchtower in Brooklyn. NY.

32. Spiritual resistance of Christian conviction in Nazi Germany: the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Gabriele Yonan. Journal of Church and State 41.2 (Spring 1999): p307(1).

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian denomination

33. Notes on church-state affairs.(Review). David W. Hendon, Dwight Allman and Donald E. Greco. Journal of Church and State 40.4 (Autumn 1998): p919(1).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

34. The modern religious objection to mandatory flag salute in America: a history and evaluation. Jerry Bergman. Journal of Church and State 39.n2 (Spring 1997): p215-236.

- Depict religious disposition as a sect

- The author is an outspoken critic of the Watchtower organization.

35. Sect-state relations: accounting for the differing trajectories of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Ronald Lawson. Sociology of Religion 56.n4 (Winter 1995): pp351(27).

- Depict religious disposition as an apocalyptic sect

36. Zwischen Widerstand und Martyrium: Die Zeugen Jehovas im "Dritten Reich.". Richard Singelenberg. Sociology of Religion 56.n3 (Fall 1995): pp342(3).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

37. Innocence, ignorance - and backlash. Leslie Williams. The Humanist 55.n2 (March-April 1995): pp33(2).

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

Results:

5 articles depict the religion as Christian. Of these 5 articles, 3 are written by authors holding a known bias and their declaration of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian should be discounted accordingly.

5 articles depict the religion respectively as “sectarians,” “apocalyptic sect,” “fringe sect,” “sect” and “apocalyptic sect”. Of these 5 articles, 1 is written by an author holding a known bias and the depiction (“sect”) should be discounted.

27 articles do not declare or depict religious disposition. Of these 27 articles, 5 are written by authors with a known bias and their failure to declare or depict Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian should be discounted. Of these 22 remaining articles, 3 should be discounted, 1 for reference value and the other 2 for brevity. (Each of these is expressed individually at the citation)

Note: A clarification was asked for and provided regarding the phrase used above of “Does not declare or depict religious disposition”. This phrase is to express a finding that the authors did not use declaratory language presenting the religion simply as “Christian” or as “Christian sect” or as “Christian new religious movement”. Instead these authors applied bias neutral presentations. So, for example, an author would write “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” but not use a declaratory sentence such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian”.

By means of the above research method disclosure editors here can reconstruct this research at any well-funded library.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the actual result of the research above. If sources that say JW is a 'non-Christian' religion is given the value -1 (though none of the sources stated such), 'disposition not stated' is assigned value of 0, and 'Christian' is given value of 1, and we discount all those entries that Marvin told us to discount, the end result is that of the undiscounted sources, 2 are in favour of calling JWs Christian, and 0 are against. Furthermore, most countries worldwide legally recognise JW to be a Christian religion. I therefore put it to other editors to judge whether bias is employed in Marvin's conclusion. However, I also stress that 'new religious movement' is indeed the most accurate depiction of the group for the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro: "Actual result"? Your analyses is amusing, but it is also fatally flawed because it discounts the consensus presentation of neutral language.

To borrow your method, were we to apply an equal value (let’s say, 1) to sources depicting Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian (=0) and sources depicting Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian (=2 using your count) and sources using neutral language (=19 at the very least) then we have a supermajority consensus with a whopping ratio of over 9 to 1 for neutral presentation that does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, but instead is careful to express beliefs for what they are, beliefs.

Your method is flawed because it applies unequal weight to presentations that are of equal weight.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier Marvin stated: "Do you think it an accident that vetted sources overwhelming decline to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian? (Which is not to say vetted sources have declared Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian)". That first sentence quoted here, and the statement in the paragraph above, makes a mistake that ignores the significance of the second sentence in the quoted statement. As previously stated, many of the sources are medical ones, which do not necessarily state the religion's disposition, as religious persuasion is not directly relevant to providing medical care (beyond the refusal to accept blood transfusions), though some medical sources may mention it at their discretion. If JW may be Christian, non-Christian, or some other third thing, then Marvin's argument above would indeed point out a fatal flaw in my analysis. But that is not the case. Either JW are Christian, or they are non-Christian. That being the case, any number of neutral presentations (and taking into account the fact that religious disposition is not important in many of those neutral articles) do not alter the actual result of whether they are viewed secularly as Christian or non-Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You state that “most countries worldwide legally recognise JW to be a Christian religion.” Can you please prove this sweeping assertion with some hard evidence? I am certainly aware that a large majority (if not all) developed nation states recognize Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion, but I am unaware that a majority (if any) recognize the religion as Christian. Please provide verification of your assertion.

I have not made such a statement in an article, so am under no obligation to go trawling for references at the moment just to appease you. You apparently have a great array of search tools available to you, so you are welcome to confirm or deny the statement using those tools if you so desire.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I beg your pardon! Just a few lines above this one you asserted that “most countries worldwide legally recognise JW to be a Christian religion.” If you want readers to take this assertion of yours seriously, then you have a burden of evidence to prove what you assert. And, by the way, you made this assertion as a premise to benefit your POV expressed on this page. Either you can prove what you write or you cannot prove what you write. Either you will prove what you write or you will not prove what you write.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the statement was ancilliary and does not take away from the weight of the other statements. Secondly, if other editors request a source, I may, at my discretion do some leg work. However, as previously stated, I will not do it just to appease you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I beg your pardon!! Your assertion that “most countries worldwide legally recognise JW to be a Christian religion” was the second (“furthermore”) of two reasons you asserted for your “therefore” exhortation to “put it to other editors to judge…” If you offer an assertion as a basis (even partial basis!) to encourage others to form a conclusion from it then you have a burden of evidence to bear. That is, IF you want to be taken seriously. Oh, and by the way, this is not the first time you have asserted the above regarding nation states recognizing Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “Christian” religion, and neither is this the first time I have requested you to prove the statement. How long are you going to keep asserting that thing before you ever get around to proving it? You need to excercise your leg-work as much as you do your keyboard-work!-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to pander to your requests because of your attitude.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: No one is asking you to pander to anything. You are being asked to prove what you say. Whether you can prove what you say, or whether you want to prove what you say, or whether you actually prove what you say is, of course, always the problem/prerogative of each editor here. I choose to put money where my mouth is. What you do is up to you.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As for bias on my part, do you really think I have sufficient influence over Onefile’s database to manipulate the above article finding? Do you really think I have any influence over all the authors who rendered well documented and informative articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses with neutral language? If so, please explain how this influence is possible. Opinions are useful, but hard evidence speaks much louder.

As previously stated, it is your conclusions that appear biased, not your research.

Jeffro77: I have not asserted a conclusion. I have asserted hard evidence. The consensus of neutral presentation is right there in black and white. Assuming I have uncontrolled bias out the wazoo, it would not change the black and white results shown above and repeatable at any library in the free world that is worth its salt.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is logically valid to state X is either Y or not-Y. (i.e., JW are either Christian or non-Christian) But logic needs evidence to prove something material. That is, logic is inconclusive when premises are questionable. No mater how sound the argument form, if we cannot substantiate the argument’s premises then its conclusion is unsound. Because there is no unbiased and sure means of determining what is “Y” (i.e., what is “Christian”) then we must look for consensus in the literature. When “Y or not-Y” is the question and the answer is unclear, then consensus of authoritative sources provides an authoritative means of, in this case, determining a reputable presentation. In this case the consensus is clear. Present Jehovah’s Witnesses without declaratory language that they are Christian (or non-Christian).

The answer, based on your own research is not actually unclear. The determination is regarding whether "X is either Y or not-Y". Of the sources that indicate X to be either Y, or not-Y, none indicate it to be not-Y, and some indicate it to be Y. Sources that do not present any determination as to X being Y or not-Y are of no value, unless there are in fact no sources that indicate X to be either Y or not-Y. Additionally, there is a quite simple definition of 'Christian', to quote Wikipedia (which also references other sourcs), "A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity", "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament. Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus." Those two articles present a good secular measure of Christianity, and JW conform completely to that definition. (This also discounts previous red herrings about Muslims being Christian, and about dangerous cults being called Christian (as if 'Christian' is automatically mutually exclusive to a cult - another theological argument not based in solid definition).)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Again you attribute undue weight by ascribing unequal weight to equal sources/presentations. When the question is “What is the consensus presentation of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as to its disposition?” and the result you find is a supermajority consensus that refrains from declaratory language one way or another (better known as neutral presentation) then the answer to the question asked is: the consensus is to refrain from declaratory language one way or another. It is patently absurd to sweep aside a consensus finding of presentation as “of no value”.

By the way, using an academic work (e.g., Wikipedia) as a source of verification for the same work (e.g., Wikipedia) is not authoritative. Good verification makes use of primary sources and third-party secondary sources. The Wikipedia articles you cite are no more authoritative than their respective sources of verification, and you have not bothered to cite those sources. On the other hand, I have done nothing by provide third-party secondary source material, and peer reviewed at that. For you to so quickly sweep this amount of verification of consensus aside is, well, it defies the senses.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I included "(which also references other sources)" rather than restating all of those sources. I am under no obligation to re-cite those sources on the Talk page. I did acknowledge that those other sources exist and were used by the Wikipedia, and you know very well how to get to them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Why am I not surprised to learn the specific source verification from the Wikipedia articles Christian and Christianity are little more than lexical entries for monotheism and unvetted single source presentations?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is very easy to pick on citations rather than actually consider the material. Do you reject the definition stated, or do you simply complain about citations to avoid actually stating that the definition (which is indeed backed up by cited references) is a fair and vaid test for a secular view of Christianity?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I am not picking on citations. I looked up the material, including information about authors, organizations and publication protocol. As for the express language offered in the Wikipedia article, the problem with using it definitively is that too much is open for interpretation. What precisely is “centered on the life of Jesus of Jesus”? What precisely is “centered on the teachings of Jesus”? (That’s a hotly debated one!) What precisely is “as depicted in the New Testament”? (That’s another hotly debated one!) What precisely is it to “teach that Jesus is the Son of God”? (Another biggy) What precisely is it to “teach that Jesus is the Messiah”? What does it mean to be “the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament”? What exactly is “the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus”? (A white hot subject of debate!!). Based on the general pulse found in contemporary publications, the Wikipedia article works fine for a great many religions professing Christianity. But the further from mainstream a religion is, the less useful is that information for assigning value of “Christian” or “non-Christian”. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is not a surprise to any editor here that from a worldwide perspective the religion is overwhelming seen as on the fringe. Whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are sitting on the "Christian" cloth at its fringe or off the "Christian" cloth at its fringe is the question, but it is percieved in worldview at the fringe either way. This placement is sufficiently in question that the most unbiased sources addressing the religion do so with neutral language. This shows respect for the religion and provides an opportunity to educate the public.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an assumption that all sources that present a neutral view about JWs' status as Christian do so because they are not biased. They may do so because it is not relevant in their work; or because they are biased against (or in favour of) JWs but don't want to appear as such; or because they are uninformed or misinformed about their beliefs. If those sources that remain neutral do not explain why they refrain from stating religious disposition, there is little value in their neutral position in regard to whether JWs are actually Christian by secular definitions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You overlook a very, very important aspect of what you seem to realize a glimmer of, but from a rather backwards view. If the consensus is overwhelmingly one of neutral presentation (which it is) and we assume that at least some of the authors must surely have a bias (either way) then the neutral presentation is only made more powerful as an academic standard. Frankly, under the circumstance of an overwhelming consensus of neutral presentation, the more bias the authors hold personally the more powerful is the academic rigor of presentation. What you apparently fail to weigh is that bias is an issue when a presentation is non-neutral; not when it is neutral. When a presentation is neutral then an author’s personal bias only underscores his or her academic integrity. In my reviews I assumed neither one way nor another, because had I assumed the worst (bias in either direction) it would have only strengthened the point, and editors like you were already accusing me of personal bias. I made every effort to avoid an excuse for editors to claim I was trying to overstate what was already an overwhelming consensus. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"what you seem to realize a glimmer of, but from a rather backwards view" is the kind of condescending expression I have spoken about previously.

Your reply above does not at all take into account the key issue regarding whether the neutral position has any real meaning. That is, "If those sources that remain neutral do not explain why they refrain from stating religious disposition, there is little value in their neutral position in regard to whether JWs are actually Christian by secular definitions." Also, the assumption that "When a presentation is neutral then an author’s personal bias only underscores his or her academic integrity" is not necessarily always the case. An author may refrain from stating their own bias in order to convince a wider audience of more subtle aspects of their viewpoint.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is always welcome. My remark was intended as compliment, not as condescending.

In case you have not heard it before, neutral presentation is a hallmark of good academic presentation, and Wikipedia is supposed to be an academic work. This is why Wikipedia expresses this form of presentation is “absolute and non-negotiable.” I cannot believe we are evening having to talk about this.

I merely pointed out that there can be other reasons for an author claiming neutrality. It does not at all indicate that I do not understand academic presentation. "having to talk about this" is imagined.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Which is why students/researchers must examine the veracity of information presented. Well trained researchers look right through form of presentation to whatever information is asserted, and whether that information is substantive. (This is why personal bias et al is irrelevant to an academic discussion, with the exception of arguments based on authority) If conclusions are asserted based on this information then they look for sound argument form, or at least consistent treatment of the information with existing information. Authors who attempt to fan readers by neutral presentations are setting themselves up for humiliating exposure that is sure to come. Exposure will come as soon as a decent researcher with interest in the subject considers the material. Take a look at the Wah example above. She feigned a neutral position, and got caught making bad assertions and using them to premise her whole article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On another, but important, note, when it comes to how we present a subject (Jehovah’s Witnesses = subject) Wikipedia policy asks us not only to verify details of information; it also requires us to verify with sources that “directly support the information as it is presented.” (Emphasis added) We do the latter by looking for consensus of presentation. The subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses is sufficiently controversial in respect to “Christian” or “Not Christian” that the restraint found even in vetted literature addressing the religion is impressive in its neutrality. But, as I said, if I wanted to share sources declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian I could deliver a boatload. This results from a common view of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it does not represent an academic presentation of the subject. If I really had the bias POV editors here think I hold, then I would act disgracefully by deluging it with biased sources, which sources far outnumber those biased in the other direction. Neutrality is the high road. We should get on it and stay on it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase... Do those sources that remain neutral explain why they refrain from stating religious disposition? If they don't, then they don't really weigh in to whether JWs are Christian, non-Christian, or some other thing. There is an important difference between (those sources) pointing out two sides of an argument and then claiming neutrality, and merely saying nothing at all. Your comment regarding the allegations of your own POV highlights my previous point about how a biased party may prefer to appear neutral. To wit, it is plausible that you might "refrain from stating [your] own bias in order to convince a wider audience of more subtle aspects of [your] viewpoint." Please note that this is only in response to your comment to demonstrate my point on personal neutrality from silence, and I am not suggesting that this is actually the situation in your case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Several of the sources explain why the need for treating and viewing the subject from a neutral position. Mostly the reason given is because of things we both already know. There is much ignorance, misinformation, fear mongering, stupid apologia and outright dishonesty, on both sides of the subject. It is not unusual for third-party authors (= no axe to grind) to express the need to look at the subject from a neutral perspective to better see beyond the circus.

When I choose to assert myself into a discussion I typically interject so participants have every reason to check my evidence closely, because I give them little emotional reason to accept my word. One way or another, they are not compelled to just trust me right out of the box. This is by design. I am not interested in being accepted. I am interested in learning and growing in every area of life as long as breath is in me, and hopefully beyond. Were you a student in my care you would probably see red more often than not. My closest friends grow from the respect earned in these encounters. It is a learning experience for all, including me. I have learned from you.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, I said "The fact also remains that 'Christianity' is not a belief system based entirely on established fact. Loosely, all Christians are only "professed Christians", since it is unprovable that Jesus was the Messiah." That statement is just as relevant now. Most of the terms questioned above are regarding things that possibly (many would say 'probably') didn't actually happen. So, the statements can only be taken at their face value. The fact that much of Christianity, as with most (all?) other religions, is interwoven with myth, legend, parable, tradition, revisionism, etc, makes it entirely subjective and extraordinarily open to interpretation. However (or, because of this), the simple statements above can still be used as a determination of being Christian without trying to explore all aspects to the nth degree (because such explorations are theological ones). Aside from aspects related to the Trinity (which it has been established is not a requirement for a religion being called Christian), the JW view of those definitions questioned above is not entirely unlike the Catholic view, or that of most other Christian religions. JWs are indeed considered on the 'fringe' of Christianity, but this is for various issues and not all of those issues have anything at all to do with Christ. However, Christ is not on the fringe of JW belief, and that is the crux of the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You should know that everything you just wrote is hotly debated. It is also hotly debated among various religious adherents whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, or something else. I am told practically on a daily basis that I belong to a non-Christian religion. Now, I do not necessarily disagree with your POV offered above. But from an academic perspective neither am I inclined to assert a POV in order to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian in an encyclopedic work when such a declaratory presentation runs contrary to an established consensus of presentation.

Yes, but they are not the same debates, and one does not control the other. Whether JWs are Christian in a secular sense is not the arena of the 'various religious adherents'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro: Which means we look to secular sources across fields of study to see how these treat and present the subject of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses when it is addressed. This is done. The consensus presentation is loud and clear: use neutral presentation to inform about the religion without declaring it as “this” or as “that” in terms of Christian or non-Christian.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy asks us not only to verify details of information; it also requires us to verify with sources that “directly support the information as it is presented.” (Emphasis added) We do the latter by looking for consensus of presentation. I have looked for this consensus from so many different perspectives (and share it!) that I have run out of search ideas short of poisoning the well. The unrivaled presentation we find in literature with esteemed vetting protocol (at least suggesting objectivity, if not assuring it) is to present the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses from a neutral position, which means speaking of the religion in terms of what it teaches (believes, et al) rather than assigning a religious value by declaring it as “this” or “that”. This consensus is profound in the literature.

You are looking for a means of defining a religion to assign a value of “this” or “that” to it. You should be looking for information about the religion to share with readers and researchers. The former is the work of a religionist. The latter is the work of an encyclopedic editor.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As for medical sources, I addressed this concern in my first methodological search using the Onefile database. You can find it above. The methodology employed excluded medical articles. The result was the same. This demonstrates a strong consensus across fields of study.

By the way, you and I apparently agree that “new religious movement” is acceptable presentation.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad there are some things we can agree on, and look forward to it happening again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

More search:

The following research shows results of a methodology intended to seek presentations from a single vetted journal source, which in this case is The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Research tool: EBSCO Host Research Databases, Academic Search Premier

Search for: “Journal of Scientific Study of Religion” in Journal Name

Search for: “Jehovah” in Abstract

Results 1-6 of 6:

1. Add AddedDisciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah's Witnesses. By: Côté, Pauline; Richardson, James T.. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Mar2001, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p11, 15p; (AN 4511602)

- Depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a millenarian group

2. Add AddedBroadening the Boundaries of Church-Sect Theory: Insights from the Evolution of the Nonschismatic Mission Churches of Seventh-day Adventism. By: Lawson, Ronald. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dec98, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p652-672, 21p, 3 charts; (AN 1525380)

- Declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian faith

3. Add AddedTHE EVOCATIVE RELIGION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: AN ANALYSIS OF A PRESENT-DAY PHENOMENON (Book). By: Singelenberg, Richard. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Jun92, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p234, 2p; (AN 9607255911)

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

4. Add AddedReligious Heritage and Premarital Sex: Evidence From a National Sample of Young Age. By: Beck, Scott H.; Cole, Bettie S.; Hammond, Judith A.. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Jun91, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p173, 8p, 2 charts; (AN 9705210393)

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

5. Add AddedWhy Conservative Churches Are Still Growing. By: Kelley, Dean M.. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Jun78, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p165, 8p; (AN 4894349)

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

6. Add AddedHigh marks for analysis of Jehovah's Witnesses. THE TRUMPET OF PROPHECY A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. (Book). By: Maesen, William A.. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Mar77, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p106-109, 4p; (AN 4895738)

- Does not declare or depict religious disposition

Results:

1 article declares the religion as Christian.

1 article depicts the religion as a millenarian group.

4 articles do not declare or depict the religious disposition.

Note: A clarification was asked for and provided regarding the phrase used above of “Does not declare or depict religious disposition”. This phrase is to express a finding that the authors did not use declaratory language presenting the religion simply as “Christian” or as “Christian sect” or as “Christian new religious movement”. Instead these authors applied bias neutral presentations. So, for example, an author would write “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” but not use a declaratory sentence such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian”.

Remark: The above method is a single source search. Though a single source method search is educational, it is questionable how well it shows consensus across fields of study regarding how unbiased authoritative sources choose to present the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

By means of the above research method disclosure editors here can reconstruct this research at any well-funded library. If editors here have a recommended source and method of searching but lack resources to perform the search, I make myself available. If my resources give me access to your recommendation I will do the work. I am not trying to push a bias. I am trying to add some objectivity by means of a careful research of the literature. Again, if you have a recommendation please make it.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional search. It too indicates that JW are presented as Christian whenever they are referred to as either "Y or not-Y". However, it would be interesting to restrict the search to a source that presents a secular view of more 'theological' than 'anthropological' discussions than "Journal of Scientific Study of Religion" would suggest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The consensus presentation is to refrain from declaring the religion as either Christian or non-Christian. Why you keep running around this eight-hundred pound gorilla is a mystery. He is in the room, and he’s not going away probably for years to come when either the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses moves more mainstream or society becomes more comfortable with the religion. You do know what it means to have a consensus of presentation, don’t you?

If you have some source you recommend, and a method of searching to recommend for the source, please speak up. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Methodical Research of Watchtower Library, Consensus Declaring cats felines?

In the Watchtower Library 2005, of the 209 articles that mention cats, only 21 of them declare them to be felines. Does this mean that there is overwhelming concensus among the Watchtower Society's Writing Committee to leave cats' status as felines unstated. No, it does not, and the conclusion is intentionally and demonstrably absurd. The same applies to Marvin's conclusions regarding sources referring to JWs as Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Another amusing but worthless comparison. It is undisputed whether cats are feline, but it is disputed whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian (from a secular and theological perspective). Hence to present a cat is to present a feline, but to present ehovah’s Witnesses it is disputed whether it is Christian or non-Christian, therefore the neutral presentation for Jehovah’s Witnesses and the sure presentation of the cat/feline. You analogy is just another strawman.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the information that has been presented suggests that the status of JWs as Christian is disputed from a secular viewpoint, and dispute from a theological perspective is not relevant. Sources declining to state religious disposition (unless they actually say something to the effect of "because of the dispute, we decline to say") is of just as much value as sources declining to state whether cats are felines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: "None of the infomation presented..." And with that reply you defer to an argument from silence. Because a supermajority of vetted presentations do not declare the religion as either Christian or non-Christian you then assume the material does not give weight to a non-Christian status. Were you to actually read the literature referenced above you would see that much of it centers precisely on the dispute of just how to view the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses (i.e., Christian or something else). If this were not in such dispute a great deal of the cited sources would not been written in the first place because they subject would not have existed!

It is only an argument from silence if a fair cross-section of sources was not selected. However, you have assured us that you performed broad searches to specifically include as many sources as possible. It is unclear why you are now leaning toward sources supporting a non-Christian status. Obviously for those sources to do so with any justification would require some definition of 'Christian', and the accuracy of such an assertion would therefore be measurable. Given that JW beliefs are definitely within the bounds of a fundamental secular, and yes, lexical, understanding of Christianity, to assert otherwise would need explicit justification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Your argument is from silence because you have not read the sources to measure the weight of information brought to bear by the authors. Instead, because the authors chose neutral presentation for their own sharing of information, you determine the information they shared does not support a conclusion of non-Christian (based on historical secular standards of acceptance as “Christian”)

I could share research showing a boatload of material expressing Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian. But more often than not these sources have serious conflicts of interest to the subject. So there is no reason to waste my time keyboarding those sources, let alone what they have to say. We already know there is a lot of bias in the world that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. There is no reason to feed this bias frenzy! So I do not. As for the reasons all these biased sources use to justify their harsh treatment of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they cloak their assertions in the banner of traditional belief when what they are really doing is snatching at the heartstrings of adherents and/or leveraging fear of the unknown. Regardless, when it comes to an encyclopedic work, in the presence of debate the most tenable presentation is one that follows whatever is the consensus presentation in vetted literature across as wide a field of studies as one can examine. In that case two very important things occur. 1) Editors can defend the authenticity of the presentation because it is consistent with a spectrum of esteemed sources, and 2) the means of altering that presentation remains open to future changes in the present consensus, which gives credibility to the presentation as bias neutral.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you draw conclusions of literature you should read it first. Let me be perfectly clear, because an author chooses not to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian or non-Christian does not mean his or her article is not precisely to illuminate the debate over whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. It just means the author (rightly!) remained neutral to the subject he or she undertook to write about. I wish it were that way here.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear just how an article that 'remains neutral' as to whether JWs are Christian serves "to illuminate the debate over whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have not been debating the question of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. I have been addressing the question, “What is the consensus presentation of Jehovah’s Witnesses as to religious disposition?” That is, is the consensus presentation to declare the religion as Christian, or is the consensus presentation to do something other than declare the religion as Christian (or anything else)? Specifically, I have looked for the most unbiased source material I can find to see whether these used declaratory language to assign a religious “value” of “Christian” or “non-Christian” to Jehovah’s Witnesses when the religion was addressed. What I find is an overwhelming consensus to avoid using declaratory language by the authors and, instead, to maintain a regimen of neutral sharing of information about the religion from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ perspective, counter perspectives, and alternate perspectives.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, in your research have you found any organizations worthy of being called christian? Wonderpet (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: You have asked for my POV. Yes. Using the biblical description of those depicted as congregations of Christians as a benchmark, I find several organizations today fitting the profile of Christian. As you can imagine, all these organizations have quite a few warts showing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you. Yes I did ask for your POV and if I may again what do you see as "the biblical description" of "christian" if you don't mind please. thanks again Wonderpet (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: I see lots of things; in fact more than I have time to keyboard onto this talk page. Generally I see a biblical description of congregations of Christians that includes a lot of questionable and outright bad behavior and influence, yet coexisting with a confession of Jesus as the leader. When I look at religions today professing Christianity, I see pretty much the same thing. Hence, based on the biblical text, I see quite a few religions today that I am forced accept that, in God's eyes, may be Christian regardlss of the same things going on in them. The biblical text depicts congregations of Christians that had much to repent for. There was terribly false teaching and prophesying, idolatry, adultery, and much more.

I am not suggesting these represent the standard Christians should strive for, or be content with. I am saying this is the way it was [depicted], hence I have no reason to think today’s reality is any different. I am compelled to add that, as an active elder among Jehovah’s Witnesses, I see plenty of all the above going on within congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses to this day. It has always been this way. For example, did you know that during the time Knorr headed the Watchtower organization that he literally pledged his allegiance to the Constitution of the United States yet at the same time oversaw a teaching that made little children among Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States? Those children suffered enormous pressure and persecution because of this, not knowing that at the same time Knorr was doing his own pledge of allegiance outside of full public view. This is rank hypocrasy, yet it is not inconsistent with what was going on in early congregations of Christians as presented in the biblical text.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you. Wonderpet (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)