Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jwbrother

You have edited this page to include a link to www.jwbrothers.org. Are you associated with this web site? If so, how? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the "Acceptance within the Jehovah's Witness community" section

I've made some major edits to this section and I fully expect that certain parties will undo them, due to obvious bias. Nonetheless, the edits I made are legitimate and the section contains fewer baseless blanket statements -- statements that essentially distort brief remarks in very old WT articles. Also, the reference to the "letter to a ministerial servant" which has no link or ability to be verified is, hopefully permanently, removed. In fact, all of the "letters to elders" should be removed from this article, since none of them can be verified publicly, except by online scanned versions which can easily be doctored. What I found most laughable was the statement that the Watchtower "reports that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have voluntarily accepted blood transfusions", when in fact the citation for that statement specifically says "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" did so, not "some". Those who are honest will take these edits seriously, and consider contributing to the removal of useless citations in this article, and thus present a legitimately neutral view of JWs and blood, as is required by Wiki guidelines. --Louisstar

Louisstar: Presumably you have me in mind. I am not ‘a certain party’. I am a fellow editor. My name is Marvin Shilmer. I am glad to interact with your edits. I am disinterested in bias. I am interested in objective presentation of verifiable information.

Since you have not specified what statements you perceive as baseless, I am unable to respond to the allegation. Could you please explain your remark? Precisely what do you consider as baseless of what you deleted?

What was distorted, and can you please explain why you hold this view?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how to verify the authenticity of the letters offered here. Call the Watchtower organization’s world headquarters and ask. It is that simple. Otherwise the letters are published and cited as verified material in authoritative sources. What letters do you have in mind, precisely?

That some Jehovah’s Witnesses have accepted blood transfusions is admitted in multiple instances by Watchtower publications cited, which you deleted one of. Hence it is not a single JW whose acceptance of blood is admitted by Watchtower. So why do you hold the view that it is laughable that Watchtower "reports that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have voluntarily accepted blood transfusions"? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Marvin: Thank you for not removing my previous edits, and I didn't have too many problems with your new ones. However, your bias still persists. Namely: You reference the 1961 article which specifically says that certain members "repented" from having committed at least one of 3 sins, and from that you (somehow!) draw the conclusion that this supports your statement that JWs have "continued to accept transfusions". It's those types of blanket statements and over-generalized interpretations that prove your deep-seated bias. And this is even further supported by the fact that your online history shows nothing but unfounded animosity towards the Watchtower organization. Please refrain from such edits and prove that you support your own statement that you are "interested in objective presentation of verifiable information".

Regarding some of the "baseless" edits you have made, one example is saying "that [the WT] has received repeated requests from individual Jehovah’s Witnesses" to change the blood doctrine, when in fact the article cited does not specifically say that it was only JWs that made these requests. In fact, from the wording in the article it could be interpreted that only non-members made such requests, however I gave it an objective view and accepted that this was an acknowledgment for both members and non.

Also, you are incorrect in saying that WT letters to elders are verifiable. They absolutely are not. Letters to congregations are different. Those are essentially public to JWs, however letters to elders and letters addressed to specific individuals are definitely not verifiable, and certainly are not publicly accessible documents. I certainly don't think a non-elder JW can contact the Watchtower for specific information found in an elders letter, when he cannot even get that information from his own congregation where the information is stored locally.

And finally, the "laughable" commment I made was right on the money: The article specifically mentioned ONE member of the anointed accepting a transfusion; your edit said that the organization "also reports that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have voluntarily accepted blood". How does anyone get the word "some" from an article that says "one"? Am I not correct in stating that you have twisted a specific statement in the Watchtower into a general baseless accusation? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.--Louisstar (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Louisstar: Of the 1987 (not the 1961) article, its usage in this instance is not toward when or if anyone repented. Rather the article shows that since 1961 there are JWs who have accepted blood transfusion despite the potential of suffering organized communal shunning. The 1961 article reference is only to verify it was in 1961 when this aspect of the Watchtower’s blood doctrine emerged. Hence, referenced articles show JWs continued to accept blood transfusion therapy beyond the 1940s and 50s when there was no organized consequence (such as in the cited 1958 article).

When you write of my online history that it “shows nothing but unfounded animosity towards the Watchtower organization” apparently you dismiss occasions where I have impeded unfounded accusations of the Watchtower organization and Jehovah’s Witnesses for sake of objectivity and honesty. Your perspective in this respect smacks of subjectivity because it appears you form a conclusion solely on information favorable to your conclusion and despite contrary information. Such thinking will always result in a preferential conclusion, which is why it is a worthless form of reasoning.

Regarding your example of a baseless edit, you contend it baseless to state that Watchtower has “received repeated requests from individual Jehovah’s Witnesses to change" the blood doctrine (based on cited sources). The articles from 1950 reveal responses to JWs because the latter is a Watchtower response addressed to “Dear Brother” which is a form of addressed used by Watchtower solely in response to JWs, and the former states to the addressee that Watchtower was “not taking any spiritual action against you,” which would only be possible if she were at the time a JW. Also cited is a Watchtower letter from 2001 where Watchtower expressly admits that one of its appointed elders believes it fine to accept blood transfusion. In all these instances Watchtower responses are toward JWs. If you continue to disagree, please explain why in face of this information.

As for non-members, this section of the article is not about acceptance of the doctrine among non-members; hence that aspect is irrelevant and no more than wordy and needless appendage, which is why I deleted those remarks. The information in question is about acceptance of Watchtower blood doctrine within the JW community.

I told you how to verify authenticity of the letters you apparently question. I see you have failed to take up the advice. Alternately, have you tried contacting the recipient of the 2001 letter you question? Regardless, the information is published and has been for several years. Another thing you dismiss is my remark that these letters are also cited in reputable and authoritative sources. It looks to me as though you have a preference that these letters be deemed unreliable regardless of means of verification.

“Some” is verified as an admission from Watchtower not just by the single reference from 1958. Watchtower’s admission of “some” is verified in the 1958 reference together with the 1987 reference. My editing supplied both these references for this paragraph of information, something you either neglect or refuse. By the way, there are other Watchtower sources verifying this. How many sources do you think the statement needs?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Conscientious Violation

conscientious: conduct done according to conscience (Oxford English Dictionary)

“If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end results the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual; later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Public Affairs Office, Statement to the media, June 14, 2000. Downloaded from jw-media.org on June 14, 2000)

Conscientious acceptance of blood is to willfully and without regret accept blood because it is an act done according to the individual’s conscience, which means the individual “is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” if the congregation learns of the act..

The statement “Conscientious violation of this doctrine is considered a serious offense, after which a member is subject to organized shunning, known amongst Jehovah's Witnesses as being disfellowshipped” is being restored in a modified form and with the additional reference quoted above. This is Watchtower policy.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Estimates of deaths

An editor inserted this statement:

An estimated 1,000 Jehovah's Witnesses die each year due to refusal of blood transfusion.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that the referenced Journal is published in one of a handful of countries where Jehovah's Witnesses are banned. U.S. State Dept. Furthermore, the cited reference merely cites a different reference which readers cannot readily access. A quote from the originating publication would be needed for verification.
In any event, it gives undue weight to include just this part of what the quoted work actually said; the quoted work actually said:

Although there are no officially published statistics, it is estimated that about 1,000 Jehovah Witnesses die each year through abstaining from blood transfusions(20), with premature deaths(7,8). On the other hand, there are also studies done which showed that “the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others”(9), with good postoperative recovery. Similarly, there were also reported cases where such patients survived major surgical procedures without any blood transfusions(21).

And...frankly, Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Information Services has exploded that statistic. See JW Office of Public Information.
The statement was removed[1] unless/until it can be presented in a more encyclopedic context. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"An editor" is me. I added the statement, referenced here. This is the article by Wilson, cited by Chua. Wilson cites the (UK) Secretary of State for Health's paper in 2000 and The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood. Both the Singapore Medical Journal and Paediatric Nursing are peer-reviewed medical journals that constitute reliable sources according to our guideline. Your point about the legal situation in Singapore is irrelevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be a mistake to take at face value what an ostensibly "peer-reviewed medical journal" may claim. The lesson for Wikipedian editors reminds us why we must cite originating sources rather than intermediary sources wherever possible. The chain begins here at this article.

• 1. A Wikipedia editor makes this statement:

An estimated 1,000 Jehovah's Witnesses die each year due to refusal of blood transfusion.

It seems fair to ask the source of such an outrageous figure; the editor points up the chain...

• 2. ...to an article entitled "Will “no blood” kill Jehovah Witnesses?"

Doesn't that very title imply that the policy results in death?

The "Chua" article is here: [2]

Twenty-eight times the article misspells the name of the religion and its adherents (as "Jehovah Witness(es)" rather than "Jehovah's Witnesses"). The article cites twenty-nine references, including several that are unabashedly anti-JW, without referencing a single website or publication of the faith. Even when referring to "Watchtower Blood Policy", the article chooses to cite a website critical of Jehovah's Witnesses rather than simply and logically citing an official website or publication of Jehovah's Witnesses or Watchtower. Still, a so-called "peer-reviewed medical journal" would never manipulate the facts, would it? Even if the journal is published in one of a handful of countries which ban (not restrict, but ban) Jehovah's Witnesses, readers should be able to believe everything it says, right? But, a skeptic does check references for outrageous figures such as that repeated in this article. The Singaporean "authority" references up the chain...

• 3. ...to an article entitled "Jehovah’s Witness children: when religion and the law collide".

But doesn't that title presuppose that this particular religion and "the law" are in conflict, that such conflicts are inevitable rather than avoidable? Jehovah's Witnesses would likely describe themselves as law-abiding rather than law-colliding.

The "Wilson" article is here: [3]

Among this article's twenty-one references, three are official websites and publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. A hurried medical professional might be excused if she accepted this "peer-reviewed medical journal", but wouldn't it seem odd that any estimate is offered even though "there are no published statistics"? Here is this article's quote, (vol 17 no 3 April 2005 Paediatric Nursing 35), "Although there are no published statistics, it is estimated worldwide that approximately one thousand Jehovah’s Witnesses die every year through abstaining from blood transfusions (Secretary of State for Health 2000...". That sounds authoritative, doesn't it? Still, a skeptic does check references for outrageous figures such as that repeated in this article. Of the two references for that sentence in this article, that first one references up the chain...

• 4. ...to testimony at a government panel involving the UK's Secretary of State for Health in 2000! See it here: [4]

Secretary of State for Health (2000); House of Commons [Hansard Text]; No. 104764: 19th January 2000.; London, HoC.

So, what was the testimony actually testified at the panel?

begin quote

Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Jehovah's Witnesses died as a result of refusing medically advised blood transfusions in each of the last five years. [104764]

Mr. Denham: We do not hold this information centrally.

end quote

Huh? By what stretch of imagination is that useful or supportive of the alleged death figure?

Well, there was another reference cited by the Wilson article...

• 5. ..."Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood".

See (vol 17 no 3 April 2005 Paediatric Nursing 35), "Although there are no published statistics, it is estimated...(Secretary of State for Health 2000, Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood 2004).

The AJWRB.org web site is patently anti-Watchtower ("Watchtower" is a name used by Jehovah's Witnesses for corporations and their principal journal). The AJWRB site even has a section it calls "Watchtower Victims Memorial". [5]

Putting aside such bias, a fair person should be curious which academic or scientific study generated AJWRB's oft-quoted statistic.

None.

AJWRB themselves conclude their own 'assuming' and 'extrapolating' with this enormous disclaimer: "There are so many assumptions made here, that these figures cannot be considered to be a reliable estimate."

Who would rely on (and repeat) an estimate which the estimator himself calls 'unreliable'? Apparently, at least two "peer-reviewed medical journals".

Here is AJWRB's analysis in context:[6]

Frankly, honest statistical analysis is not friendly to advocates of blood transfusions.This journal notes; "Transfused patients also had twice the 5-year mortality (15% vs 7%) of nontransfused patients. After correction for comorbidities and other factors, transfusion was still associated with a 70% increase in mortality"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To characterize as "an outrageous figure" that 1000 Witnesses have died annually refusing blood products on Watchtower's forbidden list is unsound. More than likely the statistical annual death rate is much higher than that. The point is whether the source is useful for purposes of Wikipedia. In my opinion, it is not. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of the nature of this "estimate", if it is included in the article at all, it should be clearly attributed in the main text rather than presented as a broadly held view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The estimate of 1000 deaths annually is the product of the online article “Just What Are The Risks?” published by Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood (at: http://www.ajwrb.org/science/risks1.shtml ) This article is unvetted so far as I can tell. Reading the article I see problems with the finding and I would never use it based on the criterion provided within the article itself. Authors who have cited this have, in my opinion, not carefully reviewed the material as presented. For whatever the information is worthy, these authors see a number and use it. Thankfully these tend to cite the source for readers who want to examine veracity of the information.

To my knowledge there is no finding published in a peer reviewed journal that, as original research, documents how many patients overall die annually by refusing blood products forbidden under Watchtower’s blood doctrine. On the other hand, there is vetted original research available for specific patient presentations that gives sufficient information to extrapolate annual mortality for specific patient presentation.

For example “A Criterion audit of women’s awareness of blood transfusion in pregnancy” published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (Kedra et al, 2002, 2:7) and “Obstetric care of Jehovah’s Witnesses: a 14-year observational study” published in Arch Gynecol Obstet (October 2007, Vol. 276, Num. 4) each offer sufficient statistical data demonstrating that at least 140 Witnesses die annually among the single patient presentation of maternity. The problem with use of this result at Wikipedia is that this statistical result is not presented in terms of a statistical annual mortality. To date the only source I know of who has bothered expressing the information in terms of annual mortality is myself, which makes it original research for this editor.

It is not particularly noteworthy that other authors have failed to present the information in terms of overall annual mortality because overall statistics across patient presentations are not very helpful in advancing medical science, and most medical science authors have the primary interest of advancing medicine. In terms of statistical information, advances in medical science are achieved by reviewing statistics in relation to specific patient presentations. The overall effects of a religious position on medical outcomes is a historical and/or political interest more than a medical interest. So, for an article like this one at Wikipedia it would perhaps be noteworthy to have an overall mortality rate to include, but authors of medical science material are not very interested in presenting their information for use in Wikipedia.

I agree with the removal of the particular information in question, and I see no basis for adding it back. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to AuthorityTam and Marvin Shilmer for your comments. I accept the decision. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Regarding the reference about Findley's study, it would be preferable to adapt the summary of the case study that is currently in the reference into prose in the main article text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What Needs Clarification?

The second paragraph of the opening of this article states,

"Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, evidence indicates a minority does not wholly endorse this doctrine. Facets of the belief have drawn praise and criticism from members of the medical community."

A clarification tag is added to that sentence. What needs clarifying that is not clarified in the article section Acceptance within the Jehovah's Witness community? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing used in the lead is vague and invites more information at that point. Either scrap the words "evidence indicates" in that sentence, or elaborate further in that paragraph. I would prefer the former.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Awake1956

A recent edit claims, "In September 1956, the Watchtower doctrine stated that accepting fractions from blood was scripturally banned."
A sufficient quotation from that publication should be included here so that the editor's interpretation of it can be verified.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

“While this physician argues for the use of certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, such also come under the Scriptural ban.”—(Awake, Blood Fractions or Substances, September 8, 1956 p. 20)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has been edited to reflect what the references actually say. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of choice

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced on the issue of excluding the WTS claim that Witnesses have freedom of choice in accepting medical procedures. I'd be interested in hearing any other views.

The wording comes from a press release from the WTS, dated January 2001. It says in part: "The choice of medical treatment is left for each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to decide for himself." The truth, of course, is that any Witness who did indeed exercise freedom of choice and decide to accept a blood transfusion (without later admitting they did wrong and begging for mercy) would be disfellowshipped because they had "abandoned the doctrine of the religious organisation". (See Muramoto, page 464). The statement itself is patently fraudulent and hypocritical and is issued publicly only to give the appearance that the Watch Tower Society does not control every aspect of Witnesses' lives.

However I think there is some rationale for including it as part of their doctrine. It is an utterly nonsensical, self-contradictory statement, yet that judgment probably should be left to the reader to determine. I think the section in the article on doctrine should therefore include the WTS claim that Witnesses have freedom of choice and the fact immediately afterwards that anyone who does exercise freedom of choice will be expelled and shunned.

Incidentally, and tangentially, I find it intriguing that the WTS statement of January 2001 scratches around to find anyone (including Beckford's 1975 book, The Trumpet of Prophecy) who supports the WTS claim that Witnesses have freedom of choice. Richard Singelenberg seems alone among academics in reaching this conclusion. Penton, Holden, Rogerson and James Beverley all are convinced that Witnesses bend their own attitudes to whatever the Watch Tower says at any point in time. Beckford's statement as quoted in the WTS statement reflects nothing more than the view of many Witnesses on the relative authority of the WTS ... and they believe that because they are told to believe it! The WTS statement is, like much of what they say, fraudulent and farcical. Still, that's kind of beside the point. Any comments on the blood doctrine wording would be welcome. LTSally (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Though "The choice of medical treatment is [according to the Watch Tower Society] left for each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to decide for himself", that statement is not specifically part of their doctrine regarding blood transfusions, and comes across chiefly as drawing attention to a contradiction. This is not the purpose of the section in question, and such a statement belongs elsewhere in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto20100414

Firstly it should be mentioned that Muramoto has for years been a consultant to a group calling itself AJWRB, notable members of which seem unhesitatingly anti-Watch Tower and anti-JW. Both AJWRB and Muramoto refer to "Watchtower victims" in their writings.
Secondly, Muramoto's claims have swung in the breeze for more than a decade without corroboration (that I've seen). So his claims are arguably WP:FRINGE. I don't mind much if Muramoto remains here (frankly, I think his papers are more laughable than interesting), but editors should recall WP:ONEWAY before refering to Muramoto's claims in articles secondary or tertiary to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood.
Still, no editor should insist that his personal (questionable) interpretation of Muramoto's ideas is preferable to simply quoting the writer himself. As bigoted as Muramoto seems, his choice of words is less accusatory than that in the interpretation of certain Wikipedia editors.
To avoid WP:3R (see here, here, and here), I leave intact the version I contest, namely:

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the [HLC] committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.

My preferred version would quote Muramoto's exact words, namely:

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

Interpretation aside, the fact is that Muramoto does NOT say "HLC places pressure" or "HLC activities place pressure" or that pressure is HLC's intention; instead Muramoto claims only that the end result is the perception of pressure felt by the patient. Muramoto does not assert actual direct causality, and its only POV interpretation that insists otherwise. By comparison, consider the claim that a police car slows down traffic, when in fact, a police car is a cause of increased driver awareness and one of several factors which result in pressure to drive slower.
Why not just quote Muramoto? --AuthorityTam (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is of no relevance that you find Muramoto's papers in a peer-reviewed medical journal laughable. Nor that the paper was published 11 years ago (a repeat of your "oh, that's ancient history!" defence.) Nor is your ad hominem attack on him of any importance. Jehovah's Witnesses are well trained to treat with contempt and arrogant dismissal any criticism of the activities of their leaders. Your intention is clearly to water down his statement with a long-winded description of his very clear point in order to obfuscate that point.

On page 465 of his paper, Muramoto says that the "influence of (the HLC's) presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders. After the patient is discharged from the hospital, congregation elders may inquire as to what treatment he received ... all these factors result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment." (emphasis mine)

The Wikipedia article does not directly deal with the involvement of congregation elders in the context of blood transfusions. It does, however, deal with the role of HLCs and in that context, Muramoto's direct statement on the impact of visits by HLC members, who are themselves elders, on the decision of JW patients, is highly relevant. What does Muramoto claim about the bedside visits of HLC members? That they place pressure on patients to refuse blood-based treatment.

Muramoto in that document echoes his earlier paper, [7], in which (page 296) he discusses the involvement of HLCs and the "coercive practices" employed by the religion in regard to medical pocedures. He states: "In many reported cases the elders of the church organisation applied pressure to a patient to confirm to its blood policy, often causing reversal of an earlier patient decision." (emphasis mine) At that point he cites five separate academic papers.

There is nothing tricky or deceptive about the current wording and your suggestion that this is a POV interpretation is a case of clear denial of the bleeding obvious. If I fatally stabbed you through the heart with a sharpened stake, it would probably be accurate to state that a stake entered your heart, leading to severe blood loss, which was one of several factors resulting in your death. It would also be accurate, and more to the point, to say that I killed you with a sharpened stake. When the HLC interrogates a patient, they are placing pressure on them to toe the line. Back to the duck test. LTSally (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No.
* Regarding claims of "ad hominem" attack: such an attack is of a target's irrelevant characteristics (e.g. he's got bad breath so we shouldn't quote him). Here at Talk, noting a source's affiliations isn't ad hominem. Noting his inflammatory language elsewhere isn't ad hominem. Noting that eleven years have passed without a single corroborative paper isn't ad hominem.
And, tellingly, AuthorityTam is not an editor trying to hide Muramoto's words.
* Regarding claims of longwindedness: my preferred text would replace 28 words of interpretation with 20 words plus 13 words quoted directly from the source. That's not longwinded.
I'll reiterate that I wish the article to quote Muramoto rather than interpret Muramoto. Yet a certain editor argues against that. Muramoto obviously hesitates to directly accuse HLC committeemen, so it seems agenda-driven to interpret Muramoto that way. Frankly, if HLC actually had the reputation which certain editors pretend, HLC would have little credibility with the medical community. The truth is that hundreds of refs show that HLC enjoys remarkable cordiality with the medical community. So hundreds of refs show that the medical community values and respects the work of JW HLCs, and the one ref which might seem a different view doesn't even directly contradict that. Why ignore all that and allow an editor's personal interpretation to cloud the facts?
Perhaps a certain editor pretends that Muramoto uses the term "elders" synonymously with "HLC"; why make that assumption when Muramoto can simply be quoted? Editors should defer to Muramoto's measured choice of words and recognize that an HLC committeeman is almost certain to be more professional than a lesser-trained elder might be (incidentally, of perhaps 500,000 JW elders globally, there are only 6,465 HLC committeemen).
If an editor imagines compelling reason to prefer his own 28-word interpretation over a 33-word Muramoto-quoting sentence, please provide that compelling reason soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, I had to read that twice... You have claimed that probably the most frequent types of ad hominem are actually not ad hominem at all. Noting a person's or group's affiliation is very often a form of ad hominem attack (e.g. "Don't trust Catholics. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic." [This is an example; no opinion should be inferred about Catholics or Hitler]). Also, highlighting irrelevant unsavoury behavioural traits (such as inflammatory language) is also a very common form of ad hominem attack.

LTSally, I agree that if the point is contested, then it is preferable to supply a quote from Muramoto rather than an interpretation. However, AuthorityTam, based on the quotes from Muramoto that LTSally has supplied above, I see no effort at all on the part of ("a certain editor" sigh) to try to "hide Muramoto's words" at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps editors miss the fact that I do not attack Muramoto at all; I did not and do not seek to disqualify him as a source. I seek to quote rather than interpret Muramoto. My reasoning was: without "attack" there is no "ad hominem attack". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't vouch for what unnamed editors might miss (unless that's a pretentious reference to me). However, you most certainly did introduce your comments about Muramoto with ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem (guilt by association): "Muramoto has for years been a consultant to a group calling itself AJWRB, notable members of which seem unhesitatingly anti-Watch Tower and anti-JW."

Ad hominem abusive: "more laughable than interesting", "As bigoted as Muramoto seems".

You also stated that you "don't mind much" if Muramoto is used as a source, in the context of your ad hominem abusive that followed, as cited above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Muramoto's presentation and suggestions of HLC activities is moderate by comparison with other authors of peer reviewed medical and ethical articles. If we are going to simply quote what medical/ethical authorities have to say should we fill the page with what we find presented in much harsher terms by other authors?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AuthorityTam writes: "Noting that eleven years have passed without a single corroborative paper isn't ad hominem." What is this eleven years without corroboration about? What has Muramoto written that is uncorroborated--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A certain editor continues to deny the obvious. The argument is less about counting words than cutting to the chase and stating what Muramoto believes the HLCs do. He criticises the coercion and intervention of HLCs, which are comprised of elders. I don't see Muramoto hesitating to do anything: he places the blame precisely where he believes it belongs. A certain editor is correct about only one thing: this argument is about interpretaion. And his viewpoint is skewed with the good old Watchtower-tinted spectacles. LTSally (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems remarkable that an editor can seriously argue that quoting a source is more skewed than interpreting the source; the interpreting editor insists upon:

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the [HLC] committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.

Except that Muramoto doesn't claim "HLCs place pressure on patients". My preferred version would quote Muramoto's exact words, namely:

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

On what planet is Muramoto's own wording less acceptable than an editor's interpretation of it?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia states information. It is not bound by the requirement to quote it. In this case it is easier to explain what the source says than have a succession of broken quotes and inserted square brackets. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is bound to accurately reflect its verifiable sources. If the interpretation of a source is uncontroversial, what is "easier" might be acceptable. In this case, there seems no encyclopedic reason to whine against Muramoto's own words and insist that the interpreting editor knows better than the source about what the source "meant" to say.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since much of Muramoto's paper is concerned with the coercion of patients by JW elders and the HLC, I don't see that there's much doubt about what he says. The "controversy" arises only because you, trained as you are to hate those who criticise your dear leaders, try to read some other interpretation into it. Whatever that interpretation is. LTSally (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Then perhaps for thoroughness we should include HLC member Malyon's remark published in the Journal of Medical Ethics about his sentiment that should he learn of a Witness who committed a gross sin, like conscientiously accepting blood transfusion, he would say to the "guilty" person "Are you going to tell them or shall I?"--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If "Malyon" is hearsay, no. If the "Malyon" anecdote is both well-sourced and representative of a studied trend among HLC committeemen, there is no reason to hide that from the article. Returning to the thread... I've again allowed Muramoto to be heard without the prism of LTSally.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Responses like that are what discourage me from participating here more than I do. Malyon was writing in his position as a Watchtower appointed member (chairman, no less) of a HLC. He was sharing policy. If you are as interested in sharing objective information as you say of yourself, then you'll retrieve the article and do something with it. If not, then you won't. I'm outta-here--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowing Muramoto to be heard. He speaks in a loud and clear voice that HLCs places pressure on Witness patients to ignore their conscience and revoke their ability to determine their medical treatment and simply toe the line with JW organisational policy. You are trying to fudge the issue in order that his view is obscured. LTSally (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unlike a certain editor, I've no intention of frantically reverting.... to my preferred wording (ironically, Muramoto's own wording). I've yet to see any compelling reason why an editorial interpretation must be preferred over pithy quotes from the source itself. Are we to pretend Muramoto didn't write what he intended to write and LTSally knows better?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A certain editor keeps using the phrase a certain editor as a trite euphemism for identifying other editors with whom a certain editor disagrees. A certain editor should realise this is tedious and makes a certain editor seem pretentious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Continung this conversation is simply inviting me to repeat myself. No, I don't know better than Muramoto. I have read Part 2 of his paper here in which he states: "In many reported cases the elders of the church organisation applied pressure to a patient to confirm to its blood policy, often causing reversal of an earlier patient decision." (emphasis mine) I have cited Part 3 of his paper in this article in which he repeats the accusation. I have simply reported what he said. The "pithy quotes" do not state his case as directly as I have done by paraphrasing him. If you believe my paraphrase is incorrect, and that Muramoto does not believe HLC elders place pressure on Witness patients, please say why. LTSally (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If Muramoto hasn't "stated his case directly" then stating it for him is synthesis, is it not? I'm unclear on how officially organized the "Hospital Liaison Committees" are, but it appears that Muramoto does not refer to them directly, but merely refers to "elders of the church". Is that correct? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. He refers directly to the HLCs when discussing coercion, pressure and intervention. Feel free to read the cited source. LTSally (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On page 465, Muramoto says "Another common situation is the intervention of the hospital liaison committee, which consists of church elders delegated to promote so-called 'no-blood' medicine." A few sentences later, he states that "Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders." I now certainly agree that he refers to HLCs directly, and Muramoto would probably agree that LTSally's summary of his arguments is correct. That being said, I don't see a problem with the proposed change of wording that includes quotes. The "factors which result in..." part is a bit watered down, but it is accurate in indicating that there are indeed other factors.

A related quote on page 467 is wordy but relevant (emphasis mine):

...if the WTS continues to teach the JW community to breach medical confidentiality and report 'wrongdoers' by ignoring this proposal [to adopt a don't-ask-don't-tell policy], the medical community will have little choice but to conclude that the WTS's claimed interest in patient autonomy is not genuine, and that its leaders' true intent is to ensure that all the followers refuse blood transfusions irrespective of their personal choice.

Be careful how you use it, since it isn't a direct accusation. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There may indeed be other factors that place pressure on JW patients, but that part of the Wiki article is discussing only the role of HLCs. In a paragraph on HLCs it is relevant to state that they have been found to be coercive in patient decisions on treatment. Additional pressure from other quarters is not relevant in that context. The latter quote does not relate directly to HLCs. It refers more to policy directives from the Governing Body. It may be worth including in the article, but not in relation to HLCs. But thanks for your comment that Muramoto's opinion is clear. LTSally (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No.
Muramoto does discuss other factors and other elders alongside HLC. Ironically (disingenuously?), LTSally insists on reverting/hiding the phrase: one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment". Here is Muramoto in context:

"After the patient is discharged from the hospital, congregation elders may inquire as to what treatment he received. Even without such interrogations, the patient may feel obliged to volunteer the information just to clear any suspicion that he might have received blood. All these factors result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment."

The facts do not support the conclusion that "the elders" must be synonymous with "HLC committeemen".
If Muramoto had intended the latter term, he could have and should have used it.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, only about 1% of JW elders serve as HLC committeemen, so it is unreasonable to ignore the likelihood that HLC committeemen are selected at least partially because they have a greater sense of professionalism than lesser-trained elders. Furthermore, HLC committeemen are not tasked to visit hospitalized Jehovah's Witnesses; Jehovah's Witnesses branch offices appoint other elders to geographic Patient Visitation Groups for that task. Wikipedia cannot lump the mistakes of PVG elders or mere congregation elders together with HLC and then blithely assert that 'HLC pressures patients'. Muramoto doesn't over-simply say it's HLC committeemen and neither should Wikipedia. No worries, we avoid needless interpretation by simply quoting from the source. Unless that doesn't serve the agenda of an interpretive editor...
--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the quote in context makes me disagree with its use in the WP article context you propose, Tam. Your proposal is to state that "the committees' interactions with Witness...are one of several factors...". The context talks about "the committees' interactions" [referring to the HLCs] but that particular quote [the "one of several factors" quote] is apparently *not* referring to the HLCs specifically. Don't get me wrong, this is not a dichotomy; we can rework the quotes and wording to satisfy everyone. So let's see some innovation instead of argument. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto raises concern over the activities of HLCs "which consists of church elders". Members of the committee, he says, "visit patients". Patients have changed their mind "after a visit from the elders". The visit from those elders therefore results in "pressure to refuse blood-based treatment". What part of that don't you understand? LTSally (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should read their own selected quotes. On that basis... Why insist on hanging patient pressure squarely on HLC committeemen? Muramoto spreads the blame to visiting elders and congregation elders, about 99% of whom are not HLC committeemen. If there are pitfalls to interpreting a source, then quote the source. Repeated reverting of source quotes seems unwikipedian.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that we're talking about editing the section entitled "Hospital Liaison Committees". Perhaps it would be better to push this criticism into the "critical views" section of the article? ...comments? ~BFizz 06:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A constructive suggestion and I'll accept that if there's no resolution of this, but in a discussion on the role of HLCs I think it's appropriate to include a single line of observation from a medical professional on another, adverse, aspect of their activities. LTSally (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A single line of observation quoted from a medical professional is certainly preferable to an editorial interpretation by an activist who claims to be "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the single line of observation already in place. LTSally (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be of interest that "a certain editor" reported me for edit warring for reverting his attempts to obscure my sentence about the activities of HLCs. I defended myself; unfortunately the discussion degenerated into a continuation of the dispute. LTSally (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring report resulted in both LTSally (aka User talk:BlackCab) and AuthorityTam being "warned" and told to leave this matter alone. It seems revealing that BlackCab characterizes the sentences quoting the source as "attempts to obscure my sentence" (that is "attempts to obscure BlackCab's sentence"). So, other editors have an opportunity to demonstrate their preference between "BlackCab's sentence" and a sentence with source quotes which "obscure BlackCab's sentence". The Wikipedian choice seems obvious to me, and a good opportunity for others to either elevate BlackCab over Muramoto or elevate Muramoto over BlackCab . --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentative dichotomy. I've stated before that I support BlackCab's summary, though the quote version isn't bad either. It's OK for the section dealing with HLCs to mention that small criticism of them. If you wish for Muramoto's wider criticisms to be heard, then I see nothing wrong with inserting them into the general criticism section. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, yes, other editors have an opportunity to state their opinion on the matter, so it isn't really necessary (or appropriate) for you to suggest what their view should be. I'm certainly happy to include a quote from Muramoto (either instead of, or in addition to, a summary), so long as the article also specifies the other "factors" that Muramoto says exert pressure on JWs to reject blood transfusions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend moving Muramoto's views to the 'criticism' section, and including the other factors he cites.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving Muramoto's criticism of the HLCs to the criticisms section is fine by me. BlackCab (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As a modified wording, I propose the following to be inserted in the Criticisms section, thus replacing the sentence in the HLCs section: "Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the intervention of HLCs can add to pressure from family members, friends and congregation members for Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment. He claims such organizational pressure compromises the autonomy of Witness patients and interferes with their privacy and confidentiality." BlackCab (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I would prefer a direct quote from Muramoto. With all the hullabaloo at the main JW article at the moment, I'm not really up to providing a more specific suggestion here at the moment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The section, containing quotes, could then read: Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the intervention of HLCs can add to "organisational pressure" applied by family members, friends and congregation members on Witness patients to refuse reverse a decision to accept blood-based treatment. He notes that while HLC members, who are church elders, "may give the patient 'moral support', the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders." He claims such organizational pressure compromises the autonomy of Witness patients and interferes with their privacy and confidentiality. BlackCab (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So, my suggestion was "long-winded" at 33 words, but BlackCab's is perfect at 99 words? I'd written:

* Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

Again, let's quote rather than interpret Muramoto...

* Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, writes, "members of the [HLC] committee may also visit JW patients. While they may give the patient 'moral support', the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders.'"

That's seems sufficient for this purpose. Again, Muramoto no doubt used the expression "a visit from the elders" because he couldn't explicitly claim "a visit from HLC committemen". Note that Muramoto prefaced this very quote by mentioning the actual role of HLC: "[not visiting patients, but] its primary mission is to assist JW patients to find doctors and hospitals" (by design and in practice, that's by liaising with doctors and hospitals, hence "hospital liaison committee" versus the separate "Patient Visitation Group" with separate committeemen).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the information will now be contained in the "Criticisms" section, the criticism should remain. Note that I have slightly reworded the sentence for a more literal summary. The sentences I have written no more "interpret" Muramoto's statements than the rest of the article "interprets" Watchtower material. If you wish to dispute that Muramoto says (a) the intervention of HLCs can add to "organisational pressure" applied by family members, friends and congregation members on Witness patients to reverse a decision to accept blood-based treatment (p.465, col 2, paragraph 1) and (b) such organizational pressure compromises the autonomy of Witness patients and interferes with their privacy and confidentiality (p.465, col 2, paragraph 2) both of which are careful summaries of his statements, please say so. BlackCab (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto discusses various aspects that are directly relevant to the scope of this article, but are broader than HLCs. Muramoto states:

WTS continues to compromise true autonomy of JW patients by systematically applying pressure and sanctions. I reviewed case reports in which organisational pressure resulted in decisions of JW patients to accept blood-based treatment being reversed. This influence comes in various forms. Typically, family members, friends and congregational members gather around the patient and "watch over their shoulder" the medical care the patient receives. Even if there is no intentional "monitoring", the peer pressure is nevertheless enormous. Another common situation is the intervention of the hospital liaison committee, which consists of church elders delegated to promote so-called "no-blood" medicine. Although its primary mission is to assist JW patients to find doctors and hospitals willing to accept patients for no-blood treatment, members of the committee may also visit JW patients. While they may give the patient "moral support", the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders. After the patient is discharged from the hospital, congregation elders may inquire as to what treatment he received. Even without such interrogations, the patient may feel obliged to volunteer the information just to clear any suspicion that he might have received blood. All these factors result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment.

I'm not suggesting that all this text go in the article, however the points therein are appropriate to the criticism section of the article, and it may best to directly quote at least part to avoid ambiguity per AuthorityTam's earlier concerns. Additionally, information in the article, "A Time to Speak" (The Watchtower, 1 September 1987, p 13, cited by Muramoto), which outlines that JWs working as healthworkers may breach patients' confidentiality to reveal 'serious sins' to elders, may also be within the scope of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I had added the information on the HLCs only to add a little perspective to the glowing praise given to them in the article. You're right that Muramoto's criticism of organizational pressure on JW patients goes beyond just the HLCs. I'll broaden it out within the Criticisms section, since the aspect of enforcement of the WTS blood doctrine (including pressure placed on patients who decide to accept blood) is not currently discussed. BlackCab (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Pressure

Comment 1: “Obstetrics professor Deirdre Murphy said hospital staff often became uncomfortable when members of the Jehovah’s Witness hospital liaison committee came into the hospital. The perception was that they were putting the patient under pressure.”--(Call for new approach to transfusion refusals, by Alison Healy, Saturday February 27, 2010, The Irish Times)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 2: “[S]ome [Witness] patients strongly desire the transfusion but in the presence of a church elder or under pressure from a family member, continue to refuse despite their wish to live.”—(Macklin, The inner workings of an ethics committee: latest battle over Jehovah's Witnesses, The Hastings Center Report, Feb-March 1988)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 3: “This case presents a good example of the situation as doctors envision it when they encounter Witnesses: the patient wants to have blood products if they will mean the difference between life and death but is unwilling to come out and say so. Furthermore, the family and religious advisors at the bedside appear, from the physicians' and judge's perspective, to be pressuring the patient to adhere to religious orthodoxy.”—(Davis, Does `no' mean `yes'? The continuing problem of Jehovah's Witnesses and refusal of blood products, Second Opinion; January 1994)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 4: “I have anaesthetised Witnesses for cardiac surgery for several years. It is my practice to tell each patient that any decision on whether they wish to receive blood or products will be respected totally and will remain absolutely confidential, and that no clinical information concerning treatment will be divulged in any circumstances. As long as strict confidentiality could be maintained, several Witnesses have said that they would accept blood or products rather than die of anaemia or a coagulopathy, in spite of having signed a special consent form for Jehovah's Witnesses which forbids the use of blood.”—(Cooper, Letter, British Medical Journal, August 13, 1994)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 5: “The family initially consented to the use of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) when the patient’s albumin was 1.2 (17 h post-burn). The patient received 2 units of FFP, however; after consultation with the Hospital Liaison Committee of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the family refused transfusion of all homologous blood products.”—(Muller et al., Control of blood loss in the treatment of a Jehovah’s Witness with massive thermal injuries using a fibroblast derived temporary skin substitute, Burns, 30, 2004, 483–487)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 6: “A [Witness] patient may want to accept blood or blood products but refuse because of fear of social and religious effects of such a choice. Physicians should speak to decisional-competent paediatric patients when they are alone, and also with their families, and explain that blood may be administered in the absence of visitors.”—(Guichon et al., Paediatric Child Health, Vol. 11, No. 10, December 2006)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 7: “"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of nothingness. On Jan. 7, after one of many visits from fellow Jehovah's Witnesses, Perez told her husband, Lorenzo, that she had signed a medical directive refusing a blood transfusion.”—(Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung transplant, by Brigid Schulte, Wednesday, February 17, 2010, Washington Post)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 8: Of reporting on Witnesses known to have committed a sin such as accepting blood transfusion, David Malyon writes, “Are you going to tell them or shall I?”—(Maylon, Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses; respecting the autonomous patient’s rights, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1998; 24:302-307. David Malyon is Chairman of the Hospital Liaison Committee of Luton, Bedsfordshire)

Comment 9: “Particularly if there is pressure from hospital staff upon a Witness to accept a transfusion, congregation elders and other senior members will assist the patient and immediate relatives in order to reduce all possible doubts. Simultaneously, to the physicians in attendance, they elucidate the Society’s viewpoint on this matter, thus providing a protective shield between doctrinal imperatives and secular temptation”—(Singelenberg, The Blood Transfusion Taboo of Jehovah’s Witnesses; Origin, Development and Function of a Controversial Doctrine, Social Science and Medicine, Vo., 31, No. 4, 1990, pp. 515-523)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 10: “Witnesses who accept blood are also subject to be disfellowshipped, which includes being shunned by family and friends. Thus, any Witness who refuses blood could be doing so as a consequence of some degree of controlling influence by the WS even if such control is inadvertent; and the requirements of autonomous action may not be satisfied by a signed standard no blood card…. It appears that the Watchtower Society’s aim is to prevent Witnesses from receiving blood transfusion rather than to ensure that Witnesses make an informed decision regarding transfusion.”—(Migdon et al., The Jehovah’s Witness Blood Refusal Card: Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations for Emergency Physicians, Academic Emergency Medicine, August 1998, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 815-824)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 11: “Two recent cases emphasize the important of understanding and continuously clarifying the wishes of a Jehovah’s Witness patient. Each report describes Jehovah’s Witnesses who, on the advice of their physician, preoperatively donated blood for later use. However, after conferring with church members, they refused autotransfusion, and their surgery had to be rescheduled.”—(Mann et al., Management of the Severely Anemic Patient Who Refuses Transfusion: Lessons Learned during the Care of a Jehovah’s Witness, Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992: 117: 1042-1048)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 12: “Witness elders and hospital liaison committee members are not commissioned, explicitly or otherwise, to pry into the private affairs of individual Witnesses. However, if individuals conscientiously volunteer information of unscriptural conduct, the elders will perform their Christian duty to provide pastoral assistance and otherwise deal with the situation.”—(Ridley, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal of blood: obedience to scripture and religious conscience, Journal of Medical Ethics, December 1999 Vol. 25, No. 6, p. 469)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 13: “Mr. Ridley, an official representative of the WTS, argues in his reply that JWs cannot be accorded the liberty to make a personal and confidential medical decision to receive a prohibited blood fraction because allowing for such a conscientious decision is tantamount to promoting hypocrisy. He further states that the WTS has the right to deny JWs’ personal freedom to chose medical treatment on the basis of personal conscience and to keep such decisions confidential because this is necessary to protect the “common welfare” of “ordered society”. Since he denies the presence of coercive practices and invasion of patient’s privacy, I have presented further evidence that serious ethical violations are currently used to enforce the blood policy.”—(Muramoto, Medical confidentiality and the protection of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ autonomous refusal of blood, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000; 26: 381-386)

Comment 14: "Virtually every region of the country has a "hospital liaison committee" of church elders and members. In addition to checking hospitals two or three times a week for any Jehovah's Witness patients, they conduct visitations and apprise medical staff of acceptable therapies and bloodless alternatives. Critics say they also run interference against inappropriate treatment sought by church members or ordered by doctors."—(The Sextuplets: Whose Babies Are They?, By MacQueen et al., Macleans, February 19, 2007, Vol. 120, Issue 6)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment 15: “Muramoto says that the elders in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, hospital liaison committee members, and others intrusively monitor and pry into Witness patients' medical treatment decisions. He claims there is overwhelming peer pressure on Witness patients to divulge details of their hospital care. Not surprisingly, Muramoto provides no authority for these statements.”—(Ridley, Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood: obedience to scripture and religious conscience, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999;25:469-472; Donald Ridley is associate general counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion:

Comments 1 and 5 seem to refute Tam's assertion that HLC people don't visit hospitals and reinforce the existence of criticism that the HLCs pressure patients. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, of course any individual may visit any other individual. It just doesn't seem likely that JW's Patient Visitation Group never performs their role, while HLC performs HLC's role and PVG's role. AuthorityTam noted that HLC is not tasked to visit patients, Muramoto himself understatedly writes that's not HLC's "primary" assignment. Frankly, I'd guess hospital personnel wouldn't ask with which committee (if any) a visiting elder was assigned.

Secondly, neither 1 nor 5 says that visits with patients occurred. (1)There seems no reason to assume that "came into the hospital" is synonymous with patient visitation. (5)It seems remarkable to ignore the likelihood that "consultation with the Hospital Liaison Committee" occurred on the telephone.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto writes of the HLC: "It consists of church elders delegated to promote the so-called 'no-blood' medicine. Although its primary mission is to assist JW patients to find doctors and hospitals willing to accept patients for no-blood treatment, members of the committee may also visit JW patients." The Irish Times similarly wrote that HLC members enter hospitals where they are perceived to put the patient under pressure. Unless a reliable source can be found that supports the personal belief of Authority (who now has adopted the odd habit of referring to himself in the third person) that HLC members do not visit patients in hospital, those statements will stand. AuthorityTam now seems to be clutching at straws in seeking to find a difference between HLC "committeemen" and elders. All HLC members are, of course, elders. BlackCab (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto concedes: HLC's "mission is assist JW patients to find doctors" and only that individual "members of the committee may also visit JW patients".
I never claimed HLC committeemen never visit patients; I did claim that PVG committeemen must visit patients.
I believe "authorities" such as the Irish Times and its sources (hurried nurses?) misidentify PVG committeemen as though they were HLC committeemen; that hardly seems a bold suggestion since, for example, Argentina has more than twice as many PVG committeemen as HLC committeemen. See "Argentina", 2001 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 212, "Today, 17 HLCs, made up of 98 elders, are active in major cities throughout Argentina, giving vital information to the medical community and providing loving support to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their work is complemented by hundreds of other self-sacrificing elders who make up Patient Visitation Groups that call on Witness patients".
I sometimes identify by name (AuthorityTam) rather than proper pronoun (me myself I) because it makes it easier to read a long thread, especially if later comments intersperse; I'll not make apologies for my small gestures toward clarity.
I will note that hollow criticism of that seems whiny and unwikipedian.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AuthorityTam writes: "I believe "authorities" such as the Irish Times and its sources (hurried nurses?) misidentify PVG committeemen as though they were HLC committeemen". Would this assertion be an example of placing an interpretation of a statement above what the statement actually says?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab was just making an observation. He finds that explanation, too, a bit odd. But out of good manners he will say no more. BlackCab (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No.
Rather, it demonstrates why it was and is wrong to interpret Muramoto's use of the term "the elders" as though it were a synonym of "the HLC committeemen". It is far more logical for most patient visits to be performed by congregation elders or by elders with Patient Visitation Group than by the far-less-numerous HLC committeemen. When Muramoto says "the elders do such and such", there is good reason to believe Muramoto INTENDED to write the elders do such and such rather than HLC committeemen do such and such.
If anyone has consistently advocated quoting rather than interpreting a source, I'd modestly submit that it is me myself (that is, AuthorityTam). I'd have been happy to edit the article, but I choose to defer on matters related to this particular source as I believe a chastened editor should.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Muramoto makes comments about this article's subject other than about HLCs, so there is no need to only focus on his comments about HLCs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Muramoto's general criticisms should not be presented as though they specially target HLCs (the branch-appointed local committeemen who are about 1% of JW elders and less than 0.1% of active JWs). It's easy to see that Muramoto's anti-JW accusations and criticisms are placed both before and after HLCs; per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV any of it may be included.
At one end, Muramoto claims "blood transfusions may not only be irrational...but may also be misinformed, misguided and, to some degree, coerced, according to the information, based on direct knowledge and experience, provided by dissidents and reformers", meaning that Muramoto is also criticizing the intellectually-wanting JW hoi polloi who are more gullible than the "dissidents and reformers" for whom Muramoto has long consulted.
At the other end, Muramoto implies a conspiracy far above the ranks of HLC; Muramoto claims "Jehovah's Witnesses are given misinformation and steered away from correct information and rational reasoning" by what Muramoto refers to as "morally questionable policies by the JW organisation". Readers get it, Muramoto doesn't like the lying, cheating, immoral Jehovah's Witnesses. Muramoto even details strategies and recommendations for physicians to repeatedly challenge every JW patient's theology and faith!
So, how much of Muramoto's quotes do editors hope to include in this encyclopedia article? Will the quantity approach WP:UNDUE? --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the strawman. No one suggested presenting all of Muramoto's strong views, just his comments about how elements of the JW organization exerts pressure on JWs receiving medical care.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the language in question addresses HLC activity because the language is used in the article's section addressing HLC. Of course Jeffro you are correct that Muramoto's article addresses more than just HLC activity, though it does speak specifically of HLC activity too.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Watchtower spokesperson Donald Ridley resolves the issue of dispute regarding the meaning of Osamu Muramoto’s remarks. According to this Watchtower representative Muramoto asserted that hospital liaison committee members intrusively monitor and pry into Witness patient’s medical decisions with the effect of leveraging “overwhelming peer pressure on Witness patients”. (See Comment 15 above)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, another example of why quotes are preferable to editors' interpretations, such as that by Marvin. Does Ridley actually imply Muramoto's asserts against HLC are unique to HLC? ...that HLCs uniquely "monitor and pry into Witness patients". No. Like me (that is, AuthorityTam), Ridley explicitly recognizes that Muramoto's accusations are not particular to HLCs, but are against at least three entities: "elders in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, hospital liaison committee members, and others". It would be better if editors stop interpreting misinterpreting sources.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: To my knowledge no one has suggested Muramoto's sentiments were stated as unique to HLC members but rather that his remarks apply to (i.e., include) HLC members. So what point are you trying to make? I agree with Jeffro. You are challanging a strawman. The reason the language at issue focuses on HLC members is because of the section of the article Muramoto's sentiments are expressed in, which happens to be a section that focues on HLCs. Because Muramoto's sentiments apply to HLC members then sharing those sentiments as they apply to HLC members in the section that addresses HLC members is entirely appropriate so far as I can tell. Why would we do anything else?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tam]

AuthorityTam make point: Quotations good. Interpretations not so good. Misinterprets bad. Use quote.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Is it your view that a Wikipedia article should be no more than a string of quoted statements? If not, then what is your point? What Muramoto was saying is rather obvious, even Donald Ridley recognized and acknowledged it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No. A Wikipedia article should be accurate. It would be inaccurate for the article to imply that HLC committeemen are accused of uniquely influencing patients. Muramoto doesn't say they are. Ridley doesn't say they are. Wikpedia shouldn't say they are.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Then I fail to see merit in the complaint you have issued in relation to the sentence:

"Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients."

That sentence neither asserts nor suggests an accusation that HLC members uniquely influence patients. In that case, what are you complaining of?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I believe that the interpretative sentence suggests that HLC is a unique cause of perceived pressure. In the Muramoto20100414 section, the inaugural post explained the matter.
Marvin's (or BlackCab's) suggestion doesn't simply fail to list the three causes which Muramoto takes care to list, it additionally obscures the possibility that there are other causes of perceived pressure. The natural and unacceptable inference from their preferred editorial interpretation (rather than my preference for actual Muramoto quotes) is that perceived pressure has only one cause—HLC committeemen. Muramoto doesn't claim that and neither should the article imply it. Editors have not explained why my suggestion, using Muramoto's choice of words, is so unacceptable.

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And nor is anyone suggesting Wikipedia say that HLCs are uniquely influencing patients. Your practice of placing bizarre and extreme interpretations on simple statements, placing yourself even at odds with your religion's official doctrines, reminds me of the dispute that arose over whether the WTS teaches that anyone other than JWs will survive Armageddon. Your reasoning throughout the discussion was simply out of this world. BlackCab (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My interest has always been in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, rather than advocating or attacking some particular religion (in contrast with a certain editor who describes himself as "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true, I did write those words, and you have quoted them twice recently,[8] [9] although you know I later removed them from my user page to avoid causing offence. You seem unnaturally bent on restirring controversy over material I removed in order to minimise offence to Jehovah's Witness readers. We both have strong views on the religion, and you commendably demonstrate an urge to defend your religion and see it painted in the best possible light. However I, too, have a strong interest in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. The sentence in this case is no more an "attack" on the article's subject than is a factual statement in a Toyota article that the company has had a series of major vehicle recalls. It is a properly sourced, neutrally stated, fact to add information about the subject. BlackCab (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor who simply wishes to see a religion discussed fairly and encyclopedically can hardly be assumed to be an adherent of the religion. It certainly simplifies things to pretend I'm motivated by a POV, and a person with an excruciatingly enunciated POV likely imagines that others are motivated by POV like him.
In any event, an editor interested in accurately representing a source could –perish the thought– actually quote the source.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: BlackCab, rest your peace of mind. Editors who want to talk about editors will talk about editors. Editors who want to talk about the article will talk about the article. Which is which is self-evident.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.

• Your intention is clearly to water down his statement with a long-winded description –LTSally [aka BlackCab] 05:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• If I fatally stabbed you through the heart with a sharpened stake, it would probably be accurate to state that a stake entered your heart –LTSally [aka BlackCab] 05:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• his viewpoint is skewed with the good old Watchtower-tinted spectacles. –LTSally [aka BlackCab] 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• you, trained as you are to hate those who criticise your dear leaders... –LTSally [aka BlackCab] 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• placing bizarre and extreme interpretations on simple statements, placing yourself even at odds with your religion's official doctrines–BlackCab [aka LTSally] 07:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• You seem unnaturally bent –BlackCab [aka LTSally] 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noted before that my simple goal here is an improved Wikipedia. I've not sought to disqualify Muramoto's words; I've sought to have him quoted accurately.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Every day of the week our personal intent to remain above the fray of pettiness is tested. There are those who fail and there are those who wallow in it. All of us have had our moments, and will have them again. Hopefully we will not suffer from drowning in our own pettiness. But it happens. My recommendation is to leave the personal stuff and focus on the subject. I don’t see any valid complaint to change the sentence you complain of.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposal

Edit proposal: How about we strike the disputed sentence

"Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.

and replace it with:

“According to Watchtower lawyer Donald Ridley, Dr. Osuma Muramoto asserts that hospital liaison committee members intrusively monitor and pry into Witness patients' medical treatment decisions and pressure Witness patients to divulge details of their hospital care. Ridley claims these assertions are unfounded yet Muramoto claims to have provided supporting evidence for his accusations.”

We would add the proper references. How say ye, fellow editors?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good spot on Ridley comments, but rewording doesn't quite cover it. Muramoto's main point was the pressure placed by HLCs and others on JW patients to reverse their decision, after having initially decided to accept blood. The rewording does contain Ridley's acknowledgment of what everyone but AuthorityTam agrees that Muramoto is saying, but it becomes a bit wordy when we're quoting Person A quoting Person B. I'm a bit sidetracked by something else at the moment, but I don't mind having a wider look at the Criticisms section to include Muramoto's views and rebuttal by Ridley and Malyon. BlackCab (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how about:

* Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

or

* Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, writes, "members of the [HLC] committee may also visit JW patients. While they may give the patient 'moral support', the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders.'"

Perhaps an editor can explain why he feels that neither of those two suggestions is acceptable. Are quotes that distasteful?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, it might be OK to state that thhe HLS are "one of several factors...", so long as those other factors are also specifically stated. Otherwise, it may falsely imply that those other factors are unrelated to pressure from JW sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. We must not create a false impression.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll restate my earlier proposal, which does explicitly detail the areas from which Muramoto claims pressure is applied. It also directly quotes him and removes any possibility of wrong interpretation. The last sentence isn't a quote (nor does it need to be), but repeats his expression "organisational pressure" My suggestion is to delete the current wording in the HLC section and insert the following under "Criticisms":

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the intervention of HLCs can add to "organisational pressure" applied by family members, friends and congregation members on Witness patients to reverse a decision to accept blood-based treatment. (Or, simply... refuse blood-based treatment). He notes that while HLC members, who are church elders, "may give the patient 'moral support', the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders." He claims such organizational pressure compromises the autonomy of Witness patients and interferes with their privacy and confidentiality. BlackCab (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perspective

Perspective: I see no reason offered by editor AuthorityTam to continue deliberation on the following sentence that is presently in the article:

“Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.”

My reason for offering this perspective is that AuthorityTam has boiled down the complaint to saying the statement should not “imply that HLC committeemen are accused of uniquely influencing patients.” ([10]) Because the sentence above neither asserts nor suggests an accusation that HLC members uniquely influence patients then I see nothing in need of further review. My opinion is we should leave the sentence as it is.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And I see no reason to hide the source's own words; I see no reason to reject the studied alternative:

• Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

That is, no encyclopedic reason exists; of course, those who wish to pretend (that HLC committeemen are not merely "a cause" or are not merely "among factors") do have reasons to hide that, but their reasons are not wikipedian.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see an editor who is trying to hide anything. The language at issue is in the section addressing Hospital Liaison Committees so naturally source information is used as it applies to Hospital Liaison Committees. As the same sources impinge other sections of the article they would, in that instance, be appropriately tailored as they apply to the subject of that section. Why would we do it any other way? Encyclopedic presentation should be organized based on the subject the presentation addresses. In this case the section addresses Hospital Liaison Committees. Do you disagree with that?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blood equated with life

No, User:AuthorityTam, your addition of 11 identical references under the Doctrine section doesn't "refute previous edit's inaccurate POV edit". The Awake article that was already cited in that section stated that in forbidding Noah from eating blood, God was "equating blood with the soul, or life, of the creature". I repeated that wording, so your claim that it was inaccurate and my point of view is a bit of a puzzle. Does the strident claim in your edit summary that "JWs actually believe that blood represents more than merely the life of one specific creature" suggest that the Awake article was wrong? You have located some other quotes from WT publications that do state that "blood represents life", which is a valid representation of the JW doctrine, but as indicated in WP:FACTS#Over-citing, one or two citations are sufficient. Eleven is a bit ridiculous and suggests you're trying to win an argument ... though I don't dispute the point at all.

In any case, can I offer a reminder that editors should assume good faith. My edits were done as part of a process of tidying up a very raggedy and repetitive article. If you, as a Jehovah's Witness, wish to keep an eye on the article to ensure it accurately represents your religion's official view that's fine and will be beneficial. Fine-tuning the wording or references can only contribute to a better article. However there is no need for such aggressive behavior. BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior? Reverting an inaccurate edit and providing references is not aggressive, although it may be bold behavior, which is to be desired among Wikipedians. By contrast, claiming that an editor who merely wishes to treat a religion with fairness and accuracy must be an adherent of the religion is odd and undesirable behavior. Interestingly, BlackCab aka LTSally has explicitly referred to himself as a former Jehovah's Witness with a host of accusations against the religion and against certain of those who merely wish to see it discussed encyclopedically. Others have criticized BlackCab/LTSally soapboxing and POV... . Anyway...

• The article formerly said, "Blood is sacred to God. Blood means life in God's eyes."
  
• After BlackCab's edit, it said, "Blood is sacred to God, who equates it with the soul, or life, of a creature."
  

Does BlackCab pretend that the former wording was lacking in grammar or accuracy or succinctness? It would seem difficult to argue any of those three as justification. The fact remains that BlackCab's edit introduced inaccuracy, pretending that the part is as significant as the whole; BlackCab's edit grossly diminished what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe. I reverted only the inaccurate part of BlackCab's edit, and included about a dozen quotes to support the pre-BlackCab wording. A typical editor would have simply moved on after being corrected, but not BlackCab. Frankly, this Talk thread seems better-placed at a user Talk page.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was part of a routine copyedit to tidy up the article. You responded by adding a string of 11 references with almost identical wording with the edit summary Refute previous edit's inaccurate POV edit. JWs actually believe that blood represents more than merely the life of one specific creature; incl refs. That's an unnecessary, obnoxious and stupid comment. I have asked you to treat edits as being done in good faith. You have responded above by accusations with inflammatory wording that I was "pretending" something with an edit that "grossly diminished" something else and once again, deflecting my request for civility by trying to stir up controversy over something that was raised and dealt with elsewhere and trying to impugn my motives. Wikipedia warns against making personal attacks; you thrive on them. You're a tiresome, troublesome editor with a rotten attitude and I think it's time to raise your conduct at another forum. BlackCab (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem the editor doth protest too much. After all, the criticism of BlackCab aka LTSally seems kettle–and–black–ey in light of his multiple personal barbs on this very page, as well as his accusing me of having rabies(diff) and wanting to burn books and authors (diff). Et al. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, the misleading phrase was corrected. JWs do not believe that God literally equates "blood" and "life" (see dictionary def). When the term "equate" is used in JW publications, it is only with respect to the particular life and the particular blood of a particular creature, and it's easy to show that instances of that phraseology to be metaphoric anyway.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a former Witness?

Editors frequently use the term "ex-Witness" or "former Witness" or something of the kind in edits here. Is there an established criteria among Wikipedia editors to objectively make that assertion?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The term has been used of Edmond Gruss and Heather and Gary Botting in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article and Raymond Franz in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. James Penton is described as a former Witness in the "Further reading" section. Each has either voluntarily departed or been expelled and declared that fact in their books. For the sake of transparency, it's beneficial to identify them as former Witnesses when they have criticised aspects of the religion. BlackCab (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What does it mean to have "voluntarily departed"? If a person attends meetings at a kingdom hall as a child but never makes the religion their own and, instead, does somthing else, do we label them as a "former Witness"? Perhaps that clarifies my question.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, mere meeting attendance has never identified a person as a Jehovah's Witness. At the other end of the scale, it's obvious that a person is a former Witness if he was baptized and later became disassociated, disfellowshipped, or intentionally inactive.
It's ambiguous, however, if he had been merely an unbaptized publisher and no longer is. It's not exactly inaccurate to refer to a never-baptized former publisher as a "former Witness" (not least of all because he formerly explicitly witnessed), but it would seem best to do so recognizing that phrase is likely to be misunderstood. I'd guess that the majority of published writers who self-identify as "former Witnesses" disclose that for reasons which are valid also here at Wikipedia. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if a verifiable source describes a person as a "former Witness" (or really, as ANYTHING), we cannot reject that unless other verifiable sources sufficiently refute it. If this thread pertains to Kerry Louderback-Wood, a verifiable reference referred to her as a former Witness. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 25#Kerry Louderback-Wood and here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AuthorityTam you supplied me with a source within a Wikipedia talk page. There is no extra-Wikipedia source provided saying Kerry Wood is a "former Witness". Do you have an extra-Wikipedia source you can cite?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My earlier comment linked to a Wikipedia Talk comment which included not merely one "extra-Wikipedia source" but two: . and . While both links now appear broken, I remembered them both as having previously worked. In any event, Ms. Louderback-Wood has described herself as a former Witness and it would likely require little research to find additional sources if someone felt it necessary to better-establish the point.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already contains this reference to a NYT article noting she was a Witness but now isn't. BlackCab (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

CT Russell and history of doctrine

The views of CT Russell on blood have been removed from the section of the article about the history of the doctrine. I take the point that Russell was not a Jehovah's Witness, but for the sake of perspective, his views are relevant. The doctrines of the JW religion obviously originated from his writings and teachings and there is an unbroken link between him as the founder of the Watch Tower Society and today's doctrines, which emanate from the same body. (Note that Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine begins with Russell's teachings). It is certainly of interest that he took a quite different view on blood from today's WTS leaders and it is entirely appropriate that an encyclopedia note that doctrinal development. BlackCab (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to discuss Russell's turn-of-the-century views on blood at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine because that article is specifically scoped to development. This article isn't, and the paragraphs about Russell detract from this article. Furthermore, this article is not about blood but blood transfusions, which weren't seriously considered in Russell's time.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)