Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links need cleaning up

A recent edit drew my attention to this article's section of external links. These do not appear to comply with WP:EL, particularly the "articles" section. I believe most of these are better left to the "references" section. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I undid an edit that had removed external links with no explanation. Perhaps this is what drew your attention. What do you recommend and why?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked what links you restored. However, I have removed sites that were either forums, self-published, not directly related to the article subject, or that no longer contain the stated content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cryosupernatant

According to some, cryosupernatant is acceptable to JWs. The source cited is prefaced by saying that it is a plasma fraction. However, is not FP24 plasma also a plasma fraction? Just because its considered a fraction by some doesn't mean it is considered acceptable by JWs, i.e. if the fraction is itself plasma.StandFirm-JW (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On consideration of the cited Watchtower and the reference next to cryosupernatant, I tend to agree that stating that JWs are allowed to accept cryosupernatant would seem to be original research. Cryosupernatant is plasma from which a minor fraction (cryoprecipitate) has been removed, and so it probably would not itself be considered a minor fraction of plasma. Without a clear JW source, it therefore should not be included in the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There is a published Watchtower source specifically naming cryosupernatant as a product that JWs can accept as a personal matter of conscience. It is published in the online article Watchtower’s Hospital Information Services Email. Because this information is published on my blog it is outside my prerogative as an editor here to use the information as a resource. Nevertheless, other editors are free to assess and use the documentation. If need be, editors can make effort to verify the documentation from one or both of the primary sources. I have done this with both primary sources. But, again, it is for other editors to assess this published information. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A screenshot of a private e-mail does not qualify as a reliable source. The Watch Tower Society publications cited by the e-mail do not specifically mention cryosupernatant. Unfortunately, the information you have on your blog therefore constitutes original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) What is available at my blog is not just a screenshot of a private email. The email contains full information of both points of origin, which means its content is verifiable. Verifiability is the cornerstone4 of authoritativeness. 2) Of course the material at my blog is original research, which is true of many sources used and cited by Wikipedia editors all the time, including this very article about blood transfusion. Wikipedia does not, to my knowledge, prohibit editors from using original research that is published elsewhere. Rather, Wikipedia prohibits authors from using Wikipedia to publish their original research. There is a difference between the two. Origin of Species is original research. But using Origin of Species as a source in support of material published at Wikipedia is just fine. 3) Otherwise, this current dispute matters not to me one way or another at this time because, sooner or later, there will be more hard evidence published showing the same thing found in the Hazel Patillo email published at my blog. This is inevitable because the information found in that email is Watchtower policy. As I understand it, the editor who raised concern over cryosupernatant is, at this very moment, in the process of independently verifying the Hazel Patillo email. When this is accomplished perhaps he will publish what he finds. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All circumlocutory aside, the private e-mail (which explicitly states that "dissemination of this communication is prohibited") is not at all acceptable as a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, aside from that, the screenshot of the e-mail is not inherently verifiable. Assuming the e-mail is authentic, then given the timestamps it seems that the primary purpose for the e-mail was specifically for baiting the HIS staff to say the product is acceptable, with either a sole or secondary purpose of providing you with that information. There is no inherent way to verify the veracity of either Hazel Patillo's or yourself; nor is it possible to confirm that the comments of a single anonymous respondent from the JW's 'HIS' department's e-mail (which is not an official JW publication) represents the official JW view. There are issues of conflict of interest, dissemination of private material, original research and potentially plain old human error in an untraceable picture of an e-mail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If/when there is something actually published, such as in a Watch Tower publication or a JW press release indicating an official position about cryosupernatant, that will be fine. Until then, your blog will not suffice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Dissemination of that correspondence was prohibited with the express exception that the recipient was free to use the written correspondence with no restriction. Hazel Patillo wanted to use the email by sharing it, which is expressly provided for in the same language you quote from. 2) If the Hazel Patillo’s email is a true and correct representation of Watchtower’s position on cryosupernatant then confirming that email communication is as easy as any researcher telephoning or otherwise contacting Watchtower’s department of Hospital Information Services. Given modern communication tools, this makes verification of the pertinent information easier than ever. 3) Since you are apparently unaware, the email address indicated on the Patillo email is a published email address for purposes of Jehovah’s Witness patients contacting Watchtower’s department of Hospital Information Services for assistance. This is found in a Watchtower publication titled Hospital Liaison Committee Network for Jehovah's Witnesses at page 6. The other email address belongs to Hazel Patillo and so far as I know is still active and used by her. 4) What is the conflict of interest you refer to? The email is not mine. I just published it at the request of Hazel Patillo. 5) Dissimination of private material is fine so long as the private person holding permission to use the material is the one who has it published, which is what has occurred in this case. 6) What is the human error you allege as a possibility? Anything published holds possibility of human error. What is important is the verifiability of information. I verified the Patillo email. So can others. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your longwinded response changes nothing, as the e-mail does not constitute an official published statement of the Watch Tower Society. Other editors are of course welcome to give their opinion on this matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing at all in the e-mail indicating an "express exception that the recipient was free to use the written correspondence with no restriction".--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Longwinded? How quaint. 2) The email states, “This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee...” Accordingly, the Addressee is free to use the email for their own purposes. The Addressee used the email by sharing it with her doctor. She shared it with me and a few others that I know of. She also asked me to share it on my blog. All of this is “the use of the Addressee” because it is done according to her wish. It is her use of the email, and she is given express permission to use it as the Addressee. 3) In modern society email from a known email address is as authentic as a hardcopy letter delivered by common postal mail. This is particularly the case when the very email address given for a specific sort of communication is used precisely for that sort of communication. The Hazel Patillo email fits that bill. 4) At this time it is unimportant to me that cryosupernatant be listed in this Wikipedia article. The day will come when more sources are available for this. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Jeffro: Above you write, “Cryosupernatant is plasma from which a minor fraction (cryoprecipitate) has been removed, and so it probably would not itself be considered a minor fraction of plasma.” Do you think that “minor” fraction or “major” fraction is consequential to this issue of cryosupernatant? If so, then how do you explain hemoglobin being a blood constituent left for Witnesses to accept purely as a matter of conscience? (See the following quoted material as a resource) Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

“What kind of blood substitutes do Jehovah's Witnesses accept? They make a decision in this regard based on the above mentioned principles. They would not accept a blood substitute which contained a major component of blood such as red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma or hemoglobin. However, as to a blood substitute which contained a minor blood derivative such as a1bumin, immune globulins, or clotting factors, each individual Jehovah's Witness would decide whether to accept it or not.”—(Richard Bailey and Tomonoro Ariga “The View of Jehovah's Witnesses on Blood Substitutes,” Artificial Cells, Blood Substitutes, and Immobilization Biotechnology, 1998, Vol. 26 Numbers 5 and 6, p. 573. Authors Bailey and Ariga are Jehovah’s Witnesses working for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in its Hospital Information Services department.) Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to answer that question. My statement you refer to indicates that there is ambiguity, and it is unnecessary for further speculation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro77, especially that "the primary purpose for the e-mail was specifically for baiting the HIS staff to say the product is acceptable, with either a sole or secondary purpose of providing you with that information. There is no inherent way to verify the veracity of either Hazel Patillo's or yourself; nor is it possible to confirm that the comments of a single anonymous respondent from the JW's 'HIS' department's e-mail (which is not an official JW publication) represents the official JW view. There are issues of conflict of interest, dissemination of private material, original research and potentially plain old human error in an untraceable picture of an e-mail." . Even if I were to contact HIS or the HLC and receive an affirmative reply, that still would not qualify as reason to put the statement up. It may be true, Marvin, that "In modern society email from a known email address is as authentic as a hardcopy letter delivered by common postal mail"; however, a hardcopy letter can easily be falsified as well; neither would it qualify as an acceptable source. As for what you quote from Bailey and Ariga, that clearly states that "minor blood derivatives" are what is allowed. Hemoglobin may be larger than other fractions but is still far smaller than cryosupernatant. At any rate, the point of the article is what JWs actually do have as a conscience matter, not what you think should or shouldn't be based on this or that. StandFirm-JW (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Marvin, did you or did you not disseminate the communication, i.e. the supposed HIS email? StandFirm-JW (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment for StandFirm-JW: 1) I wholeheartedly concur with sentiments expressing that the point of the article is what JWs actually do have as a conscience matter, and that what either of us thinks otherwise is really beside the point. 2) Regarding Ariga and Bailey, their article demonstrates that “minor” or “major” is no longer a determining factor under Watchtower’s current religious position on blood. Ariga and Bailey identify hemoglobin as a “major” component, which as of 1998 was not a conscience matter under Watchtower doctrine. Then that changed, and we know it changed because in year 2006 Watchtower published in one of its official journals that accepting hemoglobin is a conscience matter. Hemoglobin remained the same in terms or “minor” or “major”. So the thing that changed was Watchtower doctrine. 3) As for what are acceptable sources here, I recommend you take a harder look at Wikipedia guidelines and rules. 4) When you confirm that Watchtower leaves Witnesses to accept transfusion of cryosupernatant purely as a matter of conscience, how will you view the inclusion of cryosupernatant again in the list of acceptable fractions in this article? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In response to StandFirm-JW’s question, Hazel Patillo is the one who disseminated her communication. Publishing it on my blog was me acting for her as her agent. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems incredulous that you really don't understand the problem of using the e-mail as a source, but I'll provide an analogy...

If a person contacts Microsoft support about a software product and the anonymous technician provides information suggesting an otherwise undocumented feature, that does not mean that Microsoft has then published information about said feature. The customer providing that e-mail to a friend also does not constitute publication. It does not matter whether the e-mail is genuine or that all parties involved were sincere. It simply does not constitute a reliable source.

You claim that immediate inclusion in the article of cryosupernatant is not important to you, yet you continue to rant about the alleged quality of your 'source'. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer said: "When you confirm that Watchtower leaves Witnesses to accept transfusion of cryosupernatant purely as a matter of conscience, how will you view the inclusion of cryosupernatant again in the list of acceptable fractions in this article?" Response: Even if I were to find out that is the case, which I believe is very doubtful, I still don't want it included until a good source becomes available. This will happen at some point if it is true that Witnesses can accept cryosupernatant. However, you yourself stated that "as of April 2002 Hospital Liaison Committees were told plasma supernatant [cryosupernatant] was plasma" and that "Watchtower doctrine in respect to cryosupernatant has not changed since year 2000." Since JWs do not accept plasma then it seems impossible that they would accept cryosupernatant if that is considered plasma in 2002 and has not changed since then. Marvin Shilmer said: "Hazel Patillo is the one who disseminated her communication. Publishing it on my blog was me acting for her as her agent." Response: So you acted as an accomplice in her disseminating the email, is that not so? StandFirm-JW (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Eventually the information about cryosupernatant will appear in some other published work. It might be in an article published by Watchtower, or it might be published in some other source. This is how Jehovah’s Witnesses learned, for example, that it is permissible to donate their own blood so it could be fractionated and transfused to other Witnesses. Watchtower has not to this day published this. But Greg Stafford did when he published the letter Watchtower wrote to a private individual who happens to be a Witness. 2) Because I am the publisher of the Hazel Patillo email does not make me the person responsible for disseminating it. That responsibility is Hazel Patillo’s. The email is hers and she wanted it published. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Email is a modern means of communication. It is common for authors to cite direct correspondence with a recognized authority and to then include what they learn from that correspondence in their articles. Sometimes this information is not even communicated in writing! Sometimes it is only communicated verbally! There is nothing wrong with this as source information if it is published and it is verifiable. 2) As for the email in question here, it is recognized as the official email address to communicate with Watchtower’s department of Hospital Information Services. This is documented above. If this same email correspondence were cited in a medical journal would you still argue that using it as a source is a “problem”? It is not the form of communication; it is the verifiability of whatever is allegedly communicated that gives veracity to whatever the source. 3) Hazel Patillo’s email from Watchtower is no more or less anonymous than anything else that comes from Watchtower where no specific author within the organization is credited as the author. 4) I have no suggested that the Hazel Patillo email is “published” because it emanated from Watchtower. So I fail to see your analogy on that basis. Hazel Patillo’s email is published because it is on my blog, which is what she had me to do with it. 5) Perhaps you meant to say that my blog is not a reliable source. I can see that perspective since my blog probably comes across as one-sided for those unfamiliar with the entire body of my work. What I publish as Marvin Shilmer is but a small piece of my overall work. But most are unfamiliar with this; hence the question. 6) “Rant”? Really? What is with the insult? I contribute here in good faith because I care. 7) “Just stop”? What is with that? I am not participating in this piece of discussion to insist on my opinion. I have participated here to flesh out the concerns and flush out whatever issues are perceived by other equally concerned editors. This is what makes Wikipedia work. If this bothers you then perhaps you should extract yourself from the discussion. It is not my intent to intrude, or offend. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources—that is Wikipedia's opinion, not mine (not to mention the conflict of interest regarding the promotion of your own blog). Your presentation of Ms Patillo's original research is not a reliable source. If Ms Patillo's intent were genuinely a request for personal information, then the purpose of her e-mail would not have been similar to a journalist seeking information for a published article. If the real intent was to furnish information for covert 'publication' then it was done deceptively. The fact is, we are not talking about something 'published in a medical journal'. If you recognise that the e-mail is not "published" (other than in your own blog, which is not usable), then you should inherently recognise that it does not meet the criteria as a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) I have not looked for Wikipedia’s standards related to blogs because I have not suggested using information published on any blog here on Wikipedia. 2) You assert a great deal about Hazel Patillo’s intent and methods as though that matters. Has Hazel Patillo shared this information with you, or are you reading her mind? If her intent and methods are important to you then if you have not already done so then I suggest you contact her and ask before making accusations of her good name and character in full public view. At least then you’ll have something more to go on than reading email tea leaves. 3) Hazel Patillo’s email is published. It is published on my blog. Whether that satisfies Wikipedia standards is another question, one you probably know more about than me. Regardless, this information will find publication in other sources down the road because it is Watchtower policy and it has great potential to save life. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have adequately covered the possible intentions of Ms Patillo. Either it was intended only as a personal request indicating that it was not intended for publication as might be done in a medical journal; or it was covertly intended to reveal information so that you could publish it on your blog. In neither case does it, or your use of it, qualify as a reliable source.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Talk pages are not a forum. If you aren't suggesting your blog as a source for the article, then there is no legitimate purpose in your discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) The above suggestion of two possibilities represents a false bifurcation because there are alternatives beyond those two. In this case, Hazel Patillo tells me she asked the question for her own personal circumstance, but when she learned the information could help others she wanted it published to help as many as possible. I see no reason to doubt what I am told firsthand, and I see no reason to think the worst of Hazel Patillo, either. If there is something sinister, unethical or untoward about the reason Patillo gave me for asking to have her email shared it needs explanation to this editor. Otherwise, presentation of two possibilities as though there are no others is false in this case. 2) Because I have not suggested my blog publication as a source for this article on this subject does not mean the subject is unworthy of exploration because in the future this information or more like it may be published on other blogs or blog-like sources. Moreover, it could be the case that a future author will present the same information in a more conventional format, such as a medical journal. Either way, understanding the perspectives of other editors on this is worthy, and that is what my participation on this particular subject is for. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that I covered the possibilities of Ms Patillo's intentions exhaustively, but adequately, to demonstrate that neither motive makes for a reliable source here.

To reiterate, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but even if the information were to eventually appear in other blogs, those would also not constitute a reliable source here. As stated previously, if the information (i.e. an official statement about the product, not the private e-mail) is eventually published in a 'reliable source', that is fine and such a source could be cited by the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Marvin Shilmer that language such as "rant" and "Just stop" is unncessary and unhelpful. The issue of private emails as a source has been dealt with several times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. One such question was here. I have sympathy for Marvin's case, but Wikipedia policy does seem to preclude use of that email. But feel free to raise the question again at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard BlackCab (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It was entirely appropriate to tell him to "stop". Promotion here of the e-mail is not supported by policy, and he admitted that it is not a "published" source in any official sense. The blog cannot be used as a source, so his further discussion is simply using the Talk page as a forum. The only appropriate action therefore is to stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) I have not promoted the Hazel Patillo email here. I have discussed it here in an effort to better understand and learn from the experience and opinions of other editors. 2) I do not completely understand what you mean about information being published “in any official sense.” Articles at Wikipedia are not, for instance, held hostage to what a religious organization chooses to self-publish in its own “official” journals. 3) As for blogs, after reviewing Wikipedia pages on the subject, it does not appear to me as cut-and-dry as you have suggested in this discussion. 4) I have not used this page as a forum, and I do not understand why you have so many times in this exchange responded with disparaging and demanding remarks toward my contributions and person. 5) In the case of Hazel Patillo’s email, if an author reads it and takes time to verify its content with Watchtower and then includes his finding in a published article that would certainly be useful for this article so long as the source of publication is reliable. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out repeatedly that an 'official' source would be a published primary or secondary reliable source (per Wikipedia's definition), such as a press release or an article appearing in a notable publication. Nor is 'WP:other stuff exists' a justification for using your blog as a source. The purported usefulness of the e-mail is not the benchmark for inclusion, and continuing to go on about it after you've been told policy does not support its use constitutes use of the Talk page for discussion not related to improvement of the article, ergo, a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I do not understand Jeffro’s remark saying “I did not say that I covered the possibilities of Ms Patillo's intentions exhaustively, but adequately, to demonstrate that neither motive makes for a reliable source here.” 1) Assuming it true that the two motives Jeffro suggests demonstrate something less than reliability, because there are other possible intentions besides those two then I fail to understand why Jeffro continues to suggest a lack of reliability based on intention. 2) So far as I can see, Jeffro has speculated about intention and then used his speculation to suggest unreliability. The problem is Jeffro’s speculation focuses on possible ill-intent to the point of ignoring possible good intention when both are equally possible. 3) Am I wrong about Jeffro speculating? Does Jeffro have some sort of firsthand knowledge about Hazel Patillo and her email that he has not shared? How is Jeffro establishing the intent he asserts as a demonstration of unreliability? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

After being told, repeatedly, that Wikipedia policy does not support the e-mail or your blog as a source, you continue to go on about it. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and don't get annoyed with others whey then respond to your failure to follow those rules.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As previously indicated, Ms Patillo's sincerity is not the benchmark for inclusion. Neither the blog or the e-mail are acceptable as reliable sources. The possible intent was only raised, because you attempted to compare the e-mail to information published in a medical journal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) I appreciate you sharing your opinions, Jeffro. 2) I have not suggested using my blog as a published source for the information in question. 3) I am not unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, but thanks for the lecture just the same. 4) I have not attempted to compare Hazel Patillo's email to information published in a medical journal. Where that opinion comes from is a mystery to me. 5) When the information about cryosupernatant is published by a reliable source other than my blog then I will take up this subject again for input from editors. Please feel free to share your views again when the time comes. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You suggested the e-mail, and your blog containing it, as a source when you said, "There is a published Watchtower source specifically naming cryosupernatant as a product that JWs can accept as a personal matter of conscience." You indicated your unfamiliarity with the relevant policies when you said "Whether that satisfies Wikipedia standards is another question, one you probably know more about than me." You compared the blog with information in a medical journal when you said, "If this same email correspondence were cited in a medical journal would you still argue that using it as a source is a “problem”?"

As previously, and repeatedly, stated, if/when a reliable source makes mention of the product, that source can be cited in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for sharing more of your opinion. I agree that when a reliable source makes mention of the product, that source can be cited in the article for what it says. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Source on cryosupernatant: “Which blood products will and will not be acceptable? It is not a given that a patient professing to be a JW will not accept any blood products. In one study, for example, up to 10% of pregnant JW patients indicated they would accept whole blood, packed red blood cells, plasma, platelet concentrates, or white blood cell transfusions. Stored autologous blood is also not acceptable because it is out of contact with the body for an extended period. Fractionated products such as albumin, cryoprecipitate, cryo-poor plasma, and individual factors are left to the "discretion of the practicing Christian," as are organ and bone marrow transplantation.”—(West, James. “Informed refusal — the Jehovah's Witness patient” Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology: A Case-Based Textbook, Cambridge University Press, 2010 pp. 19-26.)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. It is rather unfortunate that you did not focus on providing that in the first place instead of waxing lyrical on the purported usefulness of your own 'published' source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) You are welcome, Jeffro. 2) My experience with Wikipedia editors leads me to believe it more productive and efficient to spend time on the front end of a discussion hammering out just precisely what editors are willing to accept before placing it on the table, even when it should be obvious that a source is acceptable. 3) It is rather unfortunate that one editor here was subjected to insulting innuendo and rude commentary in order to move this discussion to this point. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You were doing ok, but you should have stopped at "1". The rest of your response was paltry. In this 'discussion', you went on and on about an unusable source, though you were repeatedly told the policy does not allow it, and though you apparently knew of an appropriate one all along. I hope you do better next time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, you are certainly free to think for yourself and share your opinions of material value on the Wikipedia talk pages. Other editors should be afforded the same respect, and they should be afforded this respect by every editor. I appreciate your lecture, but respectfully disagree with its tenor and innuendo, both of which are, in my opinion, disrespectful.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You did not accept the facts from the outset when I politely told you that "A screenshot of a private e-mail does not qualify as a reliable source. The Watch Tower Society publications cited by the e-mail do not specifically mention cryosupernatant. Unfortunately, the information you have on your blog therefore constitutes original research." It is your doing that I had to become increasingly blunt. Don't blame me for your own faults.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 1) I disagreed only on the basis of your statement, not as it pertained solely to my blog presentation. Had the Patillo email been referenced as a source in, for example, a vetted medical journal then its use by an undisputed “reliable source” would not have been an issue. Hence the basis is solely the standing of the published source (i.e., my blog versus a vetted medical journal) and not the email itself. Apparently you still do not see this aspect of my participation in this issue. 2) Rudeness and disrespect is rudeness and disrespect no matter the alleged cause.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You were wrong, and you are wrong. Neither a private e-mail nor a blog constitute reliable Wikipedia sources. What a medical journal might accept as a 'reliable source' is entirely independent of Wikipedia's policies, and as it is not clear that any such journal has published the e-mail, it is also moot. If such a journal did cite the e-mail, Wikipedia could cite the journal, but it still could not cite the e-mail directly. You claimed that you know the relevant policies (though you also suggested that you don't have a full knowledge of the same policies), yet you still persist in your claim that the e-mail is a usable source. Stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "If such a journal did cite the e-mail, Wikipedia could cite the journal, but it still could not cite the e-mail directly." I think that is what I just said immediately above using different words. I think we agree.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost. But without any available presentation or discussion of the e-mail in a reliable source to consider, it's a moot point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: The book Marvin Shilmer cites is available on Google Books. I read the quote and it cites no sources for its assertion. Does this make a difference? I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policy so a more experienced editor's opinion would be appreciated. StandFirm-JW (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If a source meets the criteria for reliable sources, we don't necessarily need to know the source's source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I can’t explain the publication date of November 2010 at the web site referenced by Jeffro. But I can read the title page of the hardcopy in my personal library where it says “Cambridge University Press 2011” and “First published in 2011” for “ISBN: 9780521130646”. My choice would be to go with the rendering from the actual title page of the book cited. I’ll let other editors who have an actual hardcopy to look at decide which date (either 2010 or 2011) they think should be used in the reference. If other editors do not have an actual title page to look at, then my recommendation would be to go with whoever does have a title page to actually look at. But that’s just me. I corrected the date to read 2011 once. I’ll not do it again. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: For those who care to look: Copyright page for Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology: A Case-Based Textbook. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The "website referenced by Jeffro" was also the Cambridge website. That website gives the publication date as "November 2010", wherein it is unlikely that "2010" is a typo unless they also accidentally typed "November". In any case, your associated edit summary, "corrected typo for sake of future editors reviewing this dialogue", gave the appearance that there was a 2011 'reliable source' that made use of the 2011 e-mail. It is now clear for "future editors reviewing this dialogue" that no such use of the e-mail has been made. Edit: The comments here and below that I have struck out relate to my complaint about the date of a source in relation to the date of the Patillo e-mail. The complaint was based on my incorrect recollection of the date of the e-mail (as being 2011 rather than 2010). I apologise to Marvin Shilmer for those comments that I have struck out.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Did it occur that you should actually look at and read the Title Page? Did it occur to you that the web site holding the Title Page is Cambridge? Is it my concern or your concern what date is on the Title Page? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the precious title page. You don't need to link to it 4 billion times. I have indicated very clearly why I pointed out the 2010 reference at the Cambridge website. It is for the folks at Cambridge to sort out the discrepancy, and their reasons for the difference are immaterial here, beyond the relevance to this "dialogue" that I have already explained above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When I said that the website I cited was "also" from Cambridge, which part of that did you not understand, wherein it was quite clear that I knew your link was from Cambridge too? I've raised the matter of your condescension previously. Don't start it again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro is it your opinion that we should disregard the date on the book's title page for a date that is not on the book's title page? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already indicated why I pointed out that the material was prepared earlier than the e-mail that constituted the greater part of this "dialogue". Further discussion about the title page is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, I have not suggested using “2011” in the bibliographic reference because of any email. I have suggested using “2011” in the bibliographic reference because that is the date indicated on the book’s title page. I will ask my question to you again. Are you of the opinion that we should disregard the date on the book’s title page for a date that is not on the book’s title page? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have stated the context for indicating that the information in the book was prepared prior to the e-mail, which is so that "future editors reviewing this dialogue" have the date of the source in context. Beyond that, I obviously don't care, and am not going to pander to redundant questions. That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, there is no redundant question here; there is an unanswered question here. I do not understand why you think the reference should remain 2010 when the books title page reads 2011. You seem to assign priority to something that is not on the books title page and disregard what is actually on the book's title page. I do not understand that. I do not intend to edit the date again. If you do not want to change the date to 2011 then I'd appreciate an answer to the question I've asked. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that it should remain as 2010. I said that I have clearly indicated the context as it relates to "this dialogue", being that the informaiton was prepared prior to the e-mail. That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the target of the "more information" link on the title page you provided (which is not the title page from a hard copy) is the UK version of the page to which I linked, which was the US version. The UK version states that the information was published in October 2010. Thus the dates on the two pages would be when the information was ready for publication in the respective countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Incidentally, you sent readers to this link. Go to that link and hit the view inside button and you go here. Scroll to page 5 and you will have another view of the title page, if what the title page says has any priority with you (something I am still wondering about given you nonresponsive remarks to my question above). Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow... you're still going on about it. I have very clearly and repeatedly indicated that I commented on the change, with your disproportionately explanatory edit summary for a "typo", to remove any ambiguity about the context of "this dialogue". That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am still "going on about it" because I see the same editor who changed the date to 2010 refusing to justify this on the basis of what is found on the book's title page. Are you going to align the date to what is found on the title page, or not? If not, then why not? Do you give priority to something that is not on the book's title page rather than what is on the book's title page? For the life of me I do not understand what your intention is in regards to the bibliographic reference. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back to 2010 because at that point, the only reference to its publication I had seen —on the Cambridge website—said it was published in 2010. Having since seen the title page, I have explicitly stated that "I did not say that it should remain as 2010". Your continuing discussion of the title page is irrelevant misdirection away from my clearly stated purpose of removing ambiguity about the context of the publication date in reference to the date of the e-mail, which was the focus of "this dialogue". There is no longer any ambiguity in the matter, so there is nothing more to discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: My faith is restored. Thanks for doing the right thing editing the date to read 2011. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

See here for how this entire thread would look if you did not try to promote your blog as a published source from the outset.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You presume a great deal, Jeffro. A great deal. A discussion is a fluid event. One thing leads to another thing. Questions are asked by folks trying to understand other folks. You have presumed things of me in this discussion that are false, and that presumption has led to a great deal of this material. Your lastest notion of "how this entire thread would look" is a furtherance of your presumptive responses. I don’t understand it; but there it is. Because this is not a forum for discussing personal issues then I have relentlessly kept to the discussion, which again is always a fluid thing. I’m done here. Feel free to have the last word, I don’t need it and never have. We should be reading words and not reading minds. We should refrain from reading our own opinions and presumptions into other folk's words and actions. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite claiming to know the policies, you promoted your blog as a suitable source. It is a fact that if you had simply provided a reliable source in the first instance that all this other circumlocutory would not have taken place. There would have been nothing about which to presume anything. You did this. Don't blame others for your actions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, has it occurred to you that at the beginning of this dicussion I did not think of the source that I went on to offer and is now cited? Or, have you simply assumed it of me? Have you put that presumption of yours to the test by comparing it with the actual edits I have made? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, it may be your impression that I promoted my blog as a suitable source, but that not something I have said or intended to suggest. As I tried to communicate early in this discussion, whether the material presented on my blog is suitable or not is for other editors to determine and specifically it is not for me to determine. My remarks about material at my blog were to better understand the views of other editors. This is the discussion page and it is right to use it to facilitate better understanding. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So much for not wanting the last word. In any case, someone who claims to know the relevant policies should not have suggested their blog as a source in the interim before finding an actual usable source. Whether your blog is suitable as a source is not for other editors to determine, because Wikipedia does not accept blogs as reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, I don't know what you are reading into those words of mine you quote. But for your sake and the sake of future readers my statement you keep citing was only to inform readers I was correcting a typo that was part of this dialogue because the typo occurred in this dialogue. I am not suggesting and have not suggested that the "2011" date has anything whatsoever to do with any email. I made a typo. That typo was part of this dialogue. That's all there is to it. And, honestly, I have no idea why any of this required the torturous lack of responsiveness and presumption of bad faith, which is what appears to be going on to this editor. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was. And I'm sure that you preface all your minor typo-fixing edits with annotations about the great benefit for future editors reviewing such corrections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, I suggest that you read my words and stop trying to read my mind. If you have a question of something I write feel free to ask. I don't mind answering questions. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jeffro, the pdf pages at the link I provided are images of the hardcopy’s title page. I know because I have a hardcopy to compare it to. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Minority accept transfusion?

In the lead it is given that a minority of JW's accept blood transfusion. However I feel that their is some ambiguity in that sentence. Those accepting blood transfusions are shunned and disfellowshiped, and how can they still be a Jehovah's Witness minority?--Fazilfazil (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It says they don't endorse the doctrine, not that they have specifically accepted a blood transfusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish translation of this article

I was trying to get information for my mother concering this issue. No Spanish version of the article seems to exist. I appreciate anyone able to contribute or request it. Thanks 66.102.16.22 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can add the article or begin a 'stub' on the Spanish wiki, you may need a login, but other than that you are free to contribute.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which minority doesn't support the doctrine?

I agree with the removal of the sentence since it was simply an article written by one such person with no proof this minority is in any way significant. I am open to including the sentence if a proper source can be found. StandFirm (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is a peer-reviewed medical journal, which meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. It is certainly not an incredible or outrageous claim that some people within a religion of seven million disagree with the official blood policy. Furthermore, individual Witnesses are told blood doctrines; they do not teach them. BlackCab (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"The source is a peer-reviewed medical journal, which meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source." See noticeboard discussion. "It is certainly not an incredible or outrageous claim that some people within a religion of seven million disagree with the official blood policy." Irrelevant to WP:RS and WP:V. Also OR. "Furthermore, individual Witnesses are told blood doctrines; they do not teach them." Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion, and the religion teaches such and such. StandFirm (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of editors ar the noticeboard discussion is that the source is acceptable, so therefore the statement should remain.

It is also beyond dispute that JWs are told that use of fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins and hemophiliac preparations are "not absolutely prohibited" and a matter of personal choice. It's not clear who you think JWs "teach" this to, since the prohibition on blood transfusions applies only to baptised Witnesses. I don't believe the issue of immunoglobulins would arise very often in the door-to-door ministry, or that members of the public would seek to be taught on this. The direction on acceptance of specific blood components comes from the Governing Body and is given through JW publications to members of the religion. They are then required to obey those directions. The only "teaching" would be from one JW to another, but this is simply repeating what they have been told by the GB. From time to time the GB may change its rules on the acceptability of certain blood components; JWs are then told of those changes. BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't argue with consensus. But I prefer the rendering "are taught" as "are told" implies a lack of acceptance on the part of most JWs. StandFirm (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, if you're talking about the organisation called 'Jehovah's Witnesses', then the correct grammar is "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion". Aside from that, the Watch Tower Society, particularly since 2001, has indeed created ambiguity by stating that Jehovah's Witnesses (members) are taught by Jehovah's Witnesses (a publishing company). But more to the point, given the number of members it is unsurprising that a proportion do not accept the stance, and the fact that the Society has actually watered down its stance over the years indicates a degree of internal opposition to the doctrine (e.g. whilst JWs may not donate blood, they may accept products derived from donated blood). However, it is clear that JWs are taught what is published for them by the Watch Tower Society (but nominally published by 'Jehovah's Witnesses')

Back on topic, if all members agreed with the policy, there would be no need for sanctions for accepting a transfusion. Indeed, in 1958 the position was that "congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them" (The Watchtower 1 August 1958 p. 478) However, this was unambiguously a matter for disfellowshipping by 1961. (The Watchtower 15 January 1961 p. 63 "Questions From Readers"). The position was essentially the same right up until recent years. As a result of human rights cases such as in Bulgaria, the stance semantically altered slightly, such that members who accept a transfusion are not technically disfellowshipped for accepting blood, but rather they are considered to have disassociated by accepting a transfusion, and are still shunned. The existence of groups such as Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood also indicates that not all members accept the policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If all Jehovah's Witnesses wholly agreed with Watchtower's blood taboo (that to take part a, b, c or d from blood is worse than dying!) then we would not find Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood products forbidden under that taboo precisely because rather than accepting those products the individual would feel to do so is worse than death. But we do find a consistent documented minority of around 10-12% who accept these forbidden blood products with full understanding of what they are doing, and this despite threat of Watchtower's organized communal shunning program. Moreover, internal Watchtower documents (letters to elders) have documented that a majority of Witnesses have failed to comply with Watchtower's relentless counsel to complete the "no blood" documents provided by Watchtower to "protect" them from "unwanted" transfusion of blood.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Muramoto and WP:UNDUE

It seems to me that giving so much weight to this one critic is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Surely we can find other voices? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Muramoto material can certainly be condensed. I think I wrote much of this; I'm happy to trim it. BlackCab (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Deaths due to blood product refusal

A recent New Zealand study of 4 major public hospitals covering the years 1998-2007 offers statistical analysis of mortality due to blood transfusion refusal. It found 103 Witness patients who suffered severe anemia of which 21 died. This group refused blood transfusion but did receive alternative treatments. 103 randomly drawn patients from the same diagnosis-related group over the same period from the same hospitals suffered 2 deaths. This latter group did not refuse blood transfusion. (Ref: Beliaev et al, Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia, Vox Sanguinis (2012) 103, 18–24.

Over the years many authors have tried to extrapolate a reliable mortality rate due to refusing transfusion of blood products. Often these extrapolations include unsubstantiated assumptions, which makes them unreliable. The study cited above by Beliaev et al changes this because it provides a direct comparison with the sole difference that of acceptance/refusal of blood product transfusion. This study is more remarkable because it is conducted in a top tier medical service area. It is useful statistically because it’s an island nation whose population of JWs and no-JWs is well defined.

I’m not sure where, but findings of this medical study should have a place somewhere in this article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it (the information as presented above) is usable probably depends on if the study sought to compare JWs to the other group, or if it is a synthesis from broader isolated findings. If the source specifically makes comparisons about JWs' rejection of blood, it might go in a Mortality sub-section in the Critical views section. However, if it makes more general comments about mortality rates of bloodless surgery, it would not warrant as much elaboration, but could be included as a sentence or two under Bloodless surgery.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

- The study was designed specifically to analize the benefit and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic transfusion of red cells (ATRC) to treat severe anemia (defined as hemoglobin at =/< 80 g ⁄ l). Hence the researchers had to look for a patient population suffering severe anemia that was not treated with ATRC. The only patient population meeting this profile is among JWs who refuse ATRC. Finding the comparison group was a matter of locating all other patients during the same period at the same institutions that matched this patient profile with the sole exception of accepting ATRC, and then applying a strictly random selection from this second group to give a 1:1 ratio of 103 patients in each group (for a total of 206 patients). One group being the JW group who refused ATRC and accepting alternative treatments instead, and the other group being those who accepted ATRC, in each case to treat severe anemia.

The Beliaev et al study is not constructed as a criticism of JWs. It is strictly to assess the benefit and cost-effectiveness of ATRC to treat severe anemia. The subject ended up forcing a direct comparison of mortality among JWs who refused blood and that of patients who did not refuse blood. The end result is stated as “We have shown that compared with JW patients, ARBC transfusion in anaemic patients was associated with a 10 times reduced mortality”.-(Beliaev et al) --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Refer to comments above re bloodless surgery.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, I don't follow you. The study is a direct comparison of JWs who refuse ATRC versus patients who do not refuse ATRC. How do you recommend using the information?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked where in this article the information might belong. You stated that the study was not criticism, and indicated that the information is about medical impacts on JWs who refuse blood. (Independently employing the study as criticism would constitute original research.) As it does not seem to constitute sufficient information to warrant an entirely new section, the most relevant existing section in the article is the Bloodless Surgery section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Jeffro. Based on the current article I agree with you.

What do you think about adding a section addressing the impact of this doctrinal position? Such a section could express all impacts including advances in medical knowledge that has taken place as a result. Academic literature is virtually loaded with study after study where JW patients refusal of blood was critical because otherwise there was no ethical way of achieving the data. (Doctors cannot withhold treatment, which makes the JW patient population uniquely suitable for studies in the field of hematological medicine).--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like such a new section would be a good idea, providing there's sufficient information and sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Horrible

This article should be titled "A few facts about JW's beliefs about blood transfusions and why they are wrong." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.30.129 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New topics go at the bottom of the Talk page.

Can you be more specific about problems you have with the article? Are you disputing a source? Or is it that you just don't like the content?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After a re-read, I think the article is better than my original reaction led me to believe. However I think the addition of a section about how Witnesses use current studies to show the benefits of nonblood techniques would be appropriate.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.30.129 (talk • contribs)

A section addressing how Witnesses use (i.e., how Watchtower uses) medical studies about benefits of “nonblood techniques” would end up including sources that dispute how Watchtower has used those very sources. Such a section would also include disclosure of Watchtower’s misrepresentative use of medical articles where it attributes something to one of these articles that’s either not found in the material or else is a blatant misrepresentation. An example of the latter is the instance of Drs Crile and Denys where Watchtower asserts Crile to have quoted a letter written by Denys. The source cited by Watchtower says Crile is quoting someone other than Denys.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)