Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 52

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

NPOV needed in this Jehovah's Witnesses article

It seems as if LTSally has a strong opinion on all of the above suggestions for improving the article. Basically, it seems to be the point, that he feels the article should stay as it is, and no changes should be made, that it has no bias or POV? Is that correct? I feel the article needs some edits in order for there to be a NPOV, neutral point of view. I disagree with LTSally and will take some days in the next week to set out more clearly in the Wikipedia protocol why that is the case. The article is imbalanced with former Jehovah's Witnesses and apostates from the opening paragraphs, the quotes are mostly from a few apostate sources. So,that in itself slants the bias. But, as for more specifics, I have to spend a little time now, with Wiki protocol and go from there, please be patient. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you help us work towards good article status. If we can get a quality good article review or peer review, that will certainly help to smooth out any issues with POV. Until then, point out specific instances of POV, and we'll help to assess and correct the situation. We have made progress, especially in the criticism section, towards shedding light on all points of view. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea and good point. Thanks--Natural (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, you have an obsession with "apostates", which is distorting your view of the article. I find it frustrating to deal with you because you continue to speak in generalities about "apostates" and "controversy" rather than dealing with specific issues. You have indicated you are a psychologist by profession, so may I kindly suggest you have some "issues" than you need to address.

Several books about Witnesses that provide valuable historical information about Witness history, teachings and lifestyle have been written by former Witnesses. In your view, all are the spawn of Satan and are therefore liars, untrustworthy and bent on destroying the reputation of Witnesses. I have just had a look at the article's sources to find who these apostates are who are supposedly dominating the article and slanting it towards controversy. Those who are former Witnesses are the Bottings, Franz, Penton and Gruss. Linking those names with facts in the article sourced to them provides simple statements of fact. You need to look beyond this term "apostates" and examine the information used in the article sourced from them. Most of the sources in this article are WT publications. LTSally (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user LTSally. Since Jehovah's Witnesses is a proselytizing religion, all quotes from their literature can assumed to be presenting the religion in the best possible light. Add to that the unique jargon commonly used by Witnesses, and surely user Naturalpsychology can see the need for other sources aside from the naturally skewed presentation of the religion that is found in JW literature. To my knowledge, there does not exist an exhaustive sociological study written by an author who is not presently or formerly a Witness. To date, then, it appears we must rely on the scholarly works of Franz and Holden rather those of a completely neutral outsider (indeed, it appears that some details are only accessible to baptized members).--Sungmanitu (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with LTSally. I know that automatically makes me wrong, in his view, but so be it. And yes, former Witnesses who left the religion are just as biased as current Witnesses. If you say that witness literature is biased, then so must literature by former witnesses. Both were written in bias to express a view. I highly doubt that literature written by former witnesses is done so to express a neutral, completely factual viewpoint. Literature, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, are what I would call more neutral. And it is true that this article is heavily edited by LTSally, who's clearly biased views are expressed in his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sociological studies by non-Witnesses on the subject from unbiased sources which give both sides of the issue, including books and magazine articles. It is not all apostates or Jehovah's Witness literature.

Beckford is one. Holden is another. (Holden's books is not entirely accurate in its details). Another unbiased source is Frank S. Mead's Handbook of Denominations which gives accurate and ubiased information on most Christian denominations in the U.S. including Jehovah's Witnesses. Publisher: Abingdon Press--Natural (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reputable websites, such as

PBS, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/witnesses.html BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/

those are a few sources. Bryan R. Wilson, of Oxford University gives a pretty convincing analysis of the lack of credibility of apostates for information about their former religion.--Natural (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue for you will always be a definition of an unbiased source. The Watch Tower Society is not an unbiased source, yet you are happy to quote from that. As has been said to you time and time again, the fact that a book has been written by an ex-Witness doesn't mean the statement drawn from it is a lie. What is important is that the information is presented on Wikipedia in an editorially neutral fashion. You are resorting once again to cult language in raising the issue of "apostates" and displaying your prejudices. Sociological studies are helpful, but will not provide information on every aspect of Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I do not believe Wilson asserted a broad blanket of lack of credibility onto “apostates.” I believe he expressed a caution that personal stories and personal opinions of “apostates” should not be given too much weight unless those stories are substantiated with evidence that is not prone to bias. So far as I could tell, Wilson had no objection to well documented information regardless of the source; apostate or non-apostate.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A trained sociologist recognizes a religious adherent is just as likely to manifest a favorable bias toward their religious choice as an “apostate” is likely to manifest an unfavorable bias toward the same religion. In both cases the research must be aware of biases pro and con.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the Wilson book referred to here? LTSally (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvin and Sally seem to be focusing on the wrong point. Natural seems to be trying to get you to use unbiased sources which are not JW or jw-apostate. I haven't seen natural say we have to use JW literature only. Below I see sally arguing against using a PBS independent lens documentary? Seriously? George (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology's intention may seem pure to you, but he is approaching the issue from a prejudiced standpoint and has decided that any book written by a former Witness is biased and should not be used. He steadfastly ignores all requests to identify statements in the article drawn from such sources that fail to maintain editorial neutrality. The fact is Wikipedia policies on reliable sources do not prohibit the use of sources that one editor arbitrarily decides are, to use the cult terminology, apostates. Where the opinions of former Witnesses are used in the article, they are identified as such. Otherwise statements drawn from those sources simply provide incontestable, and often mundane, facts.

WP:SOURCES says that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A website produced by the the makers of the "Knocking" documentary doesn't fit that category. Naturalpsychology had added to the article the false statement that "Some social commentators have stated that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult or sect, but a valid religion" and cited the Knocking website as the source. That claim was not made by "some social commentators" at all and because the website is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, I removed it. LTSally (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, two things. 1) WP:AGF. Natural's POV seems no more skewed than yours. Natural just hasn't had enough experience here to make improvements to Wikipedia in the "right way". 2) "should be" does not mean "must be". In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, we need all the third party sources we can get. Franz's and his publisher's "fact-checking" is questionable, but we use him anyways. On the other hand, "some social commentators...not a cult/sect" feels unnecessary. "Some social commentators" sounds like weasel words to me. It would be correct to say "PBS documentary Knocking has stated that...", and then cite the website, though the true usefulness of the statement is questionable. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Naturalpsychology is approaching this article with a very strong opposition to using sources from ex-Witnesses. He has expressed this forcefully and repeatedly, arguing against those who tell him those sources are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I am perfectly happy to assume good faith, but I withhold that assumption in the case of clear bigotry. As for skewing POV, my opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses are clear, but I keep them out of the articles. I don't invent statements in support of my views. As for "should be/must be" in the WP:SOURCES guidelines, you're correct. But in an article that already has a large number of sources there is no need to accept concocted claims drawn from questionable sources. The statement on the Knocking website on cults has no value at all. LTSally (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, LTSally is a great example of being unbiased. Your viewpoints are clearly unbiased, right? You don't express your personal views, you just look for sources that reflect them and then call them "unbiased." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk • contribs)

User Natural and other JW apologists likewise look for sources reflecting their views and think them "unbiased" as well. A balanced article does not mean "free from biased statements," otherwise criticisms and even flattering conclusions by sociologists and others could not be included. The best we can do is honestly present both sides of the divide between critics and admirers. --Sungmanitu (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, who are you to declare that a PBS Independent Lens documentary is "not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards"? That assertion was challenged on February 1 by George, above, and you have not justified this opinion. I have researched Wikipedia Sources Policy and Guidelines, and have found nothing there that seems to disqualify PBS, Independent Lens, or Knocking as a reliable source, so your opinion seems absurd.

If the disqualification of a PBS documentary were adequately proven by nothing more than your own opinion, then it would be equally adequate for Natural to also delete any sources cited in the article, that in his opinion are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.

However, that is not how Wikipedia works; neither for him, nor for you. If you do not show just cause why Wikipedia disqualifies this documentary as a reliable source, or put a neutrally worded citation of it back in, this article will be made neutral in spite of you. Downstrike (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's recap. Naturalpsychology added to the article the statement, "Some social commentators have stated that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult or sect, but a valid religion". He cited the Knocking website as the source. The article on the Knocking website was written by someone (who?) associated with the production of a TV program about Jehovah's Witnesses. Was the claim made by "some social commentators"? No. Therefore the statement written by Naturalpsychology was false. Does that website count as a reliable source? WP:SOURCES says articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does that website, or that anonymous writer, have such a reputation? No. Because the statement was false and cited an unreliable source, I removed it. LTSally (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reiterating your previously stated opinion that the producers of this PBS documentary are not "social commentators", and do not "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", does not justify the opinion - particularly when you haven't bothered to determine who they are.

What kind of reputation does PBS have, in your opinion? Better yet, what is Wikipedia's opinion? When I researched Wikipedia Sources Policy and Guidelines, I found PBS cited as a source there.

FYI, the primary producer of the documentary is easily found on the web site. Like the authors of so many other sources cited in this article, he is a former member; he was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but left. Since that seems to be the only qualification many sources cited in this article have, that makes him just as qualified, so either allow him to be cited as a source, or equitably remove the rest of the sources that don't have any better qualification than he has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the producers are not "social commentators" fairly plainly backs up the statement that the documentary cannot be used as a source for saying that "some social commentators" made a particular claim, irrespective of any other redeeming qualities of the documentary. Is there some other statement for which you'd like to use the documentary as a source??--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The other sources you refer to do meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. An anonymous contributor to a PBS website does not. LTSally (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: Is someone seriously pretending it is not easy to find a verifiable authority (or ten verifiable authorities) for the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion." or against the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult."...? For the latter, a good editor need only consult WP:WORDS#Religion.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is pretending anything. The criticisms section contains the claim in Gruss's book that Witnesses fit the definition of a cult. This is immediatrly followed by a Watchtower response to the suggestion, denying they are a cult. User:Naturalpsychology added a sentence, as quoted above, that "some social commentators" say the Witnesses aren't a cult. The statement misrepresented the statement on a website and, given the WT response, is unnecessary. Someone has recently challenged its removal and demanded its reinstatement to make the article "neutral". The article currently describes JWs as a Christian denomination. I see no justification, of for that matter, any pressure, to change that. My recent argument has been to resist the pointless suggestion to reinstate a false statement sourced to an unreliabls source. LTSally (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that the PBS documentary is not a reliable source was challenged, and I specifically challenged you to restore a neutrally worded citation of the source - not a false statement - because I take exception to your removal of the citation of a reliable source under the pretense that it is unreliable, when it would have been adequate to edit the statement to make it neutral or reconcile it with the cited source.

Your pretense that some "contributor" connected with the documentary or its portrayal on the PBS web site is anonymous has also been noted. However, its only relevance to this discussion is to demonstrate that you don't want to know, and would rather others didn't know, either. Here are the filmmaker biographies and the site credits:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/bios.html

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/sitecredits.html

These pages were clearly linked from the source citation you deleted. I won't force you to read them, but if you still don't know who they are, that's by your own choice, and of no relevance to this discussion. Downstrike (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not for me to rewrite a Wikipedia editor's fraudulent use of a statement on a website, nor to establish who wrote the words on that website. The belief of the anonymous "Knocking" website contributor that Witnesses are not a cult is neither here nor there and adds nothing to the article. A claim is made in this article that they fit that description and a Watchtower article is provided as a rebuttal. There are numerous other books that claim the Witnesses are a cult, but I don't see any value in adding a long list of sources for those who say they are and those who say they aren't. The claim is made and a rebuttal provided. If you want to expand that section, do it yourself. LTSally (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I will consider doing that.

The statement that you consider to be from an anonymous source, is from the film's script.

Meanwhile, I hope that you will consider that rejecting the citation of such a source and almost every suggestion made from a viewpoint opposite of your own, gives the appearance - if not the reality - that you think you own this article. This appearance has brought reproach, not only upon you, but also upon another contributor to this article. At the bottom of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Jehovah.27s_Witnesses_not_a_cult_supported_by_other_sources_other_than_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses

the comment from 208.54.14.42 sarcastically implies that about both you and Jeffro77, suggesting that this person probably perceives you and Jeffro as a tag team.

Jeffro understandably takes this accusation personally, as I suspect you do, as well. However, the worst reproach is against the neutrality of this Wikipedia article, and we would do well to make some effort to dispel this perception. Downstrike (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that I may be, or may be perceived to be, a "tag team" with LTSally is ridiculuous, though it is unclear in what sense it is intended. If this is an accusation, suggestion or inference of sockpuppetry, feel free to request a whois from an admin.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Get off your high horse about reproach. You sound like something straight out of the Watchtower. If you think any section of the article lacks a neutral tone, then address it. At the moment the article contains a claim and a rebuttal. In the context of a section discussing criticisms of the religion, it is balanced and presented in a neutral tone. As I've said, I don't see that one more person's view that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't a cult adds any balance or neutrality that's not already there. But if you feel so strongly about it, stop talking about it and do someting about it. LTSally (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't notice your reply sooner. When I see a block of text at the left margin, I think that someone has started a new thread.

I'm also sorry if I used a word that doesn't belong to me. I didn't realize anyone owned it :^D I gather that I hit a sore spot, and I apologize.

I had a use for the source in mind, but further research shows me that I need to revise it. I meant to do that by now, but I've been ill; every bone in my body aches, especially my fingers, and the last thing I want to do right now is type. I'll get to it, when I can. Downstrike (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the PBS documentary, and cannot vouch for its reliability per se (though there is anecdotal evidence that at least one of the production's sponsors is a JW [this does not mean I'm saying JW input makes the documentary unreliable, merely that it may mean it is not more neutral than other sources that have been mentioned]). However, if the documentary is used as a source then it must be representative of the statement it is citing. It does not appear to have been demonstrated that the PBS documentary is a suitable source for claims about what "some social commentators" have said about the JW religion. Also, regarding AuthorityTam's concerns about whether sources say JWs are a "cult" or a "religion", we've been through this several times in the past for the lead, and there it most certainly is not appropriate to call the religion a cult (particularly given the ambiguity of that term); however, it is entirely appropriate for a criticism section to indicate the quite widely stated claim that JW has been called a cult. It is not for this section (or this article) to prove or disprove whether those claims are actually true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:WORDS#Religion the term "cult" should be either attributed to a named source or avoided.
The exception is for sociological articles where the "neutral sociological usage" of the term "must be clear".
I'd argue that it is disingenuous to pretend any "neutral sociological usage" for the use of the term "cult" in a section entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses#Social criticisms". Social is entirely different from sociological. It's unsurprising when a religion's enemies metaphorically beat on it with the pejorative club "cult"; it's more surprising when ostensibly objective editors insist on the term universally understood to be intended "usually with negative connotations".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The intent of WP:WORDS#Religion is clearly to avoid the article labelling a religion as a cult, which would be applying an opinion and a breach of WP:NPOV. The reference to a cult in this article is clearly an accusation in a book by a named author, and contained in a criticisms section. It is balanced by a rebuttal by the WTS. The use of the word "cult" is therefore completely acceptable. LTSally (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORDS#Religion plainly says, "Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended."
If an editor wishes to argue for a change to the plain language of a Wikipedia guideline, the editor should do so at that guideline's Talk page.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And in this case the article is not saying "Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult". The article says "Critics quoted by former Witness Edmond Gruss call the Watch Tower organization a cult." That's plain enough. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand user AuthorityTam's contention. Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. Your words. The usage in the article is plainy attributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungmanitu (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cult20100301

Why such a desperate insistence on tacking the label "cult" on some target?
Why the hesitation to cite the claim directly back to its initial named claimants?
We don't dodge a Wikipedia guideline by sidestepping it.

Fact 1: WP allows "X claims Y is a cult.", where X is a named source of the claim.
Fact 2: WP disallows "Unnamed someones claim Y is a cult."
Conclusion: WP disallows "X says unnamed someones claim Y is a cult".

Otherwise, the guideline at WP:WORDS#Religion (explicitly intended to reduce the use of the pejorative "cult") would be a mere speedbump for clever editors to circumvent.
Either name whoever claims "X is a cult" or don't use the anonymous claim.
The term "cult" can only remain after tags for "who" and "quotation requested" have been resolved.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the insistence? Because it's a notable widely held view, to which JW literature has explicitly responded. It is correctly posited in a criticism section, and is not stated as a plain fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With your usual dramatic flourish, you say I’m displaying a "desperate insistence" to “tack a label” on the Witnesses. Get a grip. The Witnesses are clearly described in the article as a Christian denomination. All I’m doing is documenting a common point of criticism that the Witnesses are a cult.

The source of the claim in this case is already clearly stated in the article: critics quoted by Edmond Gruss. That attribution alone is enough to satisfy the requirement at WP:WORDS. Gruss doesn't reveal their names, although he says (page ix) that all were Witnesses for between 30 and 50 years and claims they requested anonymity to avoid the inevitable repercussions that would be directed at them and their families from other Witnesses. To overcome your predictable response that those critics are not named, I’ll alter the wording to say that Gruss himself calls the Witnesses a cult: “The author himself reluctantly came to the conclusion that the Watch Tower Society is a cult, the Cult of Rutherford, renegade heir to the Cult of Russell.” (p.65)

And to avoid any further nitpicking and hair splitting, I’ll add some more books that explicitly identify Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. As you're probably well aware, there's no shortage, so I'll include a representative sample. LTSally (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

--A cult is commonly thought of as an organization in which its adherents give their total allegiance to the organization’s leadership and renounce any allegiance to non-cult authority.

In the case of the JWs, for example, they do pay taxes to "worldly” governments, but only because their leadership authorizes such. If the leadership were to declare that such was no longer permitted (“the light has become clearer” – their seemingly inevitable rationalization for changes in and reversal of positions), then JWs would no longer willingly pay taxes and suffer the temporal consequences thereof in favor of obedience and what they perceive to be an eternal reward for their steadfast faithfulness to God.

The concept of total obedience has an effective enforcement apparatus lacking within more conventional religions in which “excommunication” applies only to religious (and not social) considerations and even that is not rigorously enforced any longer, as in the case of Catholicism.

I most decidedly agree that the JWs is a cult. However, far be it from me to condemn anyone for actually taking his or her religion seriously and acting like they really believe what they preach. One could make a case that the original Christian community was also a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The term 'cult' is interpreted in various ways, and the pejorative form is too vague to be useful as a definition for JWs. However, the criticism section should mention the claim that the religion is a cult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

--Jeffro, I agree that the term “cult” is interpreted in various ways, and I also agree that the connotation of the word has become a pejorative. As a result, no one ever belongs to a cult. A cult is a religion that only others belong to. It would seem that indisputably cults exist but no one ever belongs to them.

Please allow a slight digression by way of analogy. I write articles on Tourette’s Syndrome in which I espouse heretical views. I dispute the current orthodoxy (since around 1968) that the affliction is a “neurological disorder” with an organic basis. Instead, I hold to the pre-1968 view that it is a psychological affliction (which upsets a lot of people). One of (many) of my arguments is the entirely subjective way in which the affliction is now defined. I argue that if the affliction were truly physical, then there would be no need for such diagnostic subjectivity by “consensus.” After all, everyone knows what cancer and acne are. Doctors and others don’t sit around debating what constitutes the diseases. (If a person has five or more "zits,” then it’s acne!)

Getting back on point, I argue for the adoption of my definition of what a cult is which has a most simple and objective sole criterion: its adherents render their total and absolute allegiance to the cult’s leadership to the exclusion of any other source of authority (which the leadership maintains by simply expelling any member who waivers). In this vein, we don’t have to argue what other criteria must apply for a cult to be labeled as such, and we can eliminate the pejorative connotation of the word and render it simply as a statement of fact with no connotation beyond the denoted fact.

If the leadership of a religious organization tells its members what is and is not a “personal decision” (in which case the member may act as he or she deems best in a situation), then the leadership in fact demands absolute allegiance and authority because it reserves the right to define what is and is not a “personal decision” which paradoxically renders such illusory. For example, up until 1975 (I think) JWs smoking was a “personal decision.” After that time, it became a “disfellowshipping" offense.

Therefore, since any “personal decision” allowed its members can be revoked by the leadership at any time, no such thing exists in fact. That is the definition of a cult and not whether or not what a cult's leadership decrees is wise or just; true or false. It is not the trees that matter, but rather the forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion has some merit, though because there are so many definitions of cult it's impractical to adopt just one at Wikipedia as the universal demarcation of whether a group is a cult or not. The WTS certainly commands the lives of all its millions of members in an extraordinary way, telling them explicitly what they may and may not do. I was rather bemused when I read the double-talk of the WTS over its opposition to blood transfusions. As I've explained at length elsewhere, the WTS in 1998 declared in a formal statement to the European Commission of Human Rights that its members have "free choice" to receive blood transfusions "without any control or sanction on the part of the association". Subsequent statements by WTS spokesmen indicated that the society had in fact made no change to its policy on blood transfusions and that its statement to the ECHR was shamelessly duplicitous. The bottom line was that Witnesses were "free" to choose to accept a transfusion, but if they did so, they would be disfellowshipped for abandoning the religion's doctrines. If the WTS renounced its opposition, or (as in the case of some former prohibitions) reduced the issue to one of "personal conscience", a fair number of Witnesses would indeed accept transfusions where doctors deemed them necessary. Witnesses are forbidden to celebrate birthdays or Christmas, buy lottery tickets and a host of other things. They come up with all sorts of justifications for their "personal opposition" to it. If those bans were removed, it would be similarly revealing how many suddenly found their consciences did allow them to do those things. LTSally (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HistorBuff14, you are quite correct about the JWs illusory stance on things that are 'conscience matters'. However, the problem with your suggestion is summed up in your statement: "I argue for the adoption of my definition of what a cult is". We can't just arbitrarily define terms in Wikipedia articles. If a particular (reliable) source employs the term in the way you suggest, then that source can be cited in the article. Regarding your sarcastic coment, "A cult is a religion that only others belong to"; I'm not suggesting whether JWs or any other group are or are not actually a cult by some particular definition. What I am saying is that it is not for Wikipedia editors to arbitrarily decide which particular definition is to be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The article would benefit from briefly stating specifically which characteristics Hoekema, Rhodes and Gomes believe to identify the religion as a cult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

--Jeffro, the problem with arguing from authority is implied within my comments regarding Tourette’s Syndrome. These who deride my “crank” views do so by arguing from contemporary authority. However, because my views regarding the causative agency (the mind as opposed to a physical abnormality within the brain or other parts of the central nervous system) of the affliction are in accordance with the orthodoxy prior to 1968, then those who deride my views must also deride the orthodox, authorative paradigm prior to 1968. The problem is that acknowledging that authority can be wrong begs the question: “If they were wrong then, why can’t they be wrong now?” It would seem that prior to 1968 the recognized authorities in the field were also cranks.

Since the particular characteristics of cults as enumerated by the sources you apparently recognize as authoritative have a great deal of inherent subjectivity by listing several individual characteristics (the metaphorical trees as opposed to the forest) which can be debated as opposed to being put forward as factual, can any source therefore be considered truly “authoritative?”

My proposed definition of a cult is the most objective one I’ve yet seen put forth. For example, the fact that JWs shun blood transfusions under any circumstances is not an aspect of their beliefs that defines them as a cult. Rather, it is their willingness to have the issue of blood transfusions decided for them by the cult’s leadership. Indeed, it is their willingness to have any and all issues decided for them by the leadership that distinguishes them as a cult and not because of this or that particular aspect of their religion.

What separates my definition as objective (which Wikipedia always strives toward) from the subjective ones of the perceived authorities you mention is that it can be factually demonstrated. Time and again, JWs have shown their willingness to accept whatever pronouncements their leadership promulgates as binding and authoritative. Indeed, cult members make just one decision their entire lives: “I will accept without question whatever the leadership instructs me and act accordingly.”

Therefore:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses is a type of a religious organization classified under the subcategory cult as its leadership demands the right to regulate any aspect of its adherents’ lives and beliefs it deems proper and will expel and socially sanction any dissenting voices within the organization. Its members give their sole allegiance to the organization’s leadership and any cooperation granted to other authorities, such as governmental or familial relationships, is strictly at the discretion and direction of the religion’s leadership. (See criticisms section for other definitions of a cult.)"

This proposed assertion by Wikipedia is value neutral as it does not take any position on particular beliefs or practices of the organization, nor does it imply any judgment on the wisdom of belonging to a cult.

Of course, I can’t force anyone to accept my definition of a cult. I can only put such forth and hope that others will see its logic and accept it as authoritative in regard to Wikipedia, which has as much right to pronounce itself as an authorative source as does any other person or institution in regard to this matter. It can then, of course, list the claims of various dissenting sources such as those you mentioned. If a sufficient amount of editors weigh in support of my proposal, then I suggest the beginning of the article be rewritten accordingly along the lines I suggest above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how authoratitive you imagine yourself to be. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. The article can only address information that can be verified in reliable sources. You can't just decide that the article should use your definition of 'cult' (and—this is important—even if your definition is best). Nor is it the purpose of this article to suggest that any particular definition of the word 'cult' is better than any other. Because there are various definitions, all the article can (and should) do is to present how various sources have defined the word 'cult' and present how they have applied that term to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

--Okay, Jeffro. I understand your position and rest assured I never edit an article itself unless I am absolutely certain of my ground, such as my correcting factual matters regarding various articles concerning the novel The Godfather, on which I do consider myself an authority. I am not suggesting that I am an authority on cults (to the contrary, I am suggesting there is no such thing), just suggesting that since the very concept is so subjective that Wikipedia should feel free—if the majority of editors concur—to adopt an agreed upon objective definition of the word.

On a final note, I want to make it clear that in no way should any of my remarks be interpreted as being derogatory towards the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although I do consider it to be a cult, I do not find such to be illogical or irrational. As I said, after all one can make a case that the original Christian community (the first generation as de facto led by the Apostle Paul) was also a cult. For people who are very independent thinkers by nature, such might seem anathema. However, what one likes or prefers is not what establishes truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC) HistoryBuff14 -- Sorry, I forgot to log in.

The reason that Wikipedia must not adopt any particular definition of cult as 'the' definition is specifically because the concept is so subjective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Improvement to NPOV of Social Criticism

I apologize for taking so long to come up with this. I become ill before and during major earthquakes. I probably become abnormally grouchy too, and I apologize for that.

As discussed and disgusted ad nauseum above, there have been requests for more balance in the presentation of POVs in the Social Criticism section, and that any citation of the PBS Knocking documentary be neutral and factual.

I also note that the first paragraph of this subsection is becoming bloated, so I suggest breaking the paragraph after the assertion that the Watch Tower organization is a cult. I propose this wording for the second paragraph:

Others disagree. In the script of the award-winning documentary, Knocking, the documetary's author and ACLU civil liberties advocate Joel P. Engardio, who was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but chose not to be one, states that they have too many members to be a sect in the pejorative sense, "nor have they broken away from another religion", and that they do not fit the definition of a cult.

ref> Engardio, Joel P. (2007-04-17). "Myths & Realities". PBS Independent Lens. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2010-03-03.</ref>

John Bowen Brown II, a Social Educator associated with the Center for Studies on New Religions, a former Jehovah's Witnesses member and a cult deprogrammer,

ref> Brown II, John Bowen (2008-04-16), "Cult Watchdog Organizations and Jehovah's Witnesses", Twenty Years and More: Research into Minority Religions, New Religious Movements and 'the New Spirituality', London School of Economics, London, UK: Center for Studies on New Religions, retrieved 2010-03-03 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

calls Jehovah's Witnesses a sectarian religion, rather than cultic.

ref> Brown II, John B. (2005-06-02), "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anti-cult Movement: A Human Rights Perspective", Religious Movements, Globalization and Conflict: Transnational Perspectives, Palermo, Sicily: Center for Studies on New Religions {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

Jehovah's Witnesses also deny they are a cult;

ref>"Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?", The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, pages 5-7</ref>

they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking.

ref>"Do Others Do Your Thinking?", Awake!, August 22, 1978, page 4.</ref>

ref>"Who Molds Your Thinking?", The Watchtower, April 1, 1999, page 22, "You have free will. Exercising it, you can choose to respond to Jehovah’s molding influence or deliberately reject it. How much better to listen to Jehovah’s voice instead of arrogantly asserting, 'No one tells me what to do'!"</ref>

The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader.

ref>Bearing Thorough Witness to the Truth. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 2009. p. 110. The Governing Body follow the leading of the holy spirit of God. Its members do not consider themselves leaders of the people of Jehovah. Rather, as all anointed Christians on earth, they "follow the Lamb, Jesus Christ, wherever he goes."</ref>

Please let me know of any problems with this proposal. Downstrike (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a References section below, so the citations will be visible. I have only made minor changes to the wording that begins with Jehovah's Witnesses denying they are a cult. Downstrike (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've determined that when I copied the latter part of the paragraph, I picked up some vandalism that hadn't been reverted yet, so I'm removing it from the proposed text. Is it typical for this article to see this much vandalism? I hope that improving the perception of NPOV will help reduce vandalism. Downstrike (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your wording is far too detailed for that section, which is a summary only of the main article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. At the moment there is one sentence making the claim that they are a cult and one sentence containing a rebuttal, which is from the Watch Tower Society. In a summary paragraph, that should be sufficient. The first response to claims that they are a cult should come from the religion itself, rather than a documentary maker who first says they are not a sect (though there is no claim that they are a sect) and then adds, wuthout elaboration, that they don't fit the definition of a cult. What is his definition of a cult? Because of objections from another editor who for tenuous reasons didn't want the word "cult" used at all, I have added citations for three more books. Those books specifically discuss religious cults and include the Witnesses in that category.

If you think Joel Engardio's opinion is worth including, it should go in the main article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not convinced his peremptory and rather simplistic dismissal is worth much, but if you add it there, then for the sake of balance I'll expand that section further by including comments from the other four authors on why they believe Witnesses are a cult. LTSally (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you'll ever get enough retaliation to get it out of your system? I'm sorry, but you never will, so don't bother trying. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't the place to get it.

Must you take this article so personally? No one is here to hurt you; no one has hit you even once, and no one is going to, so there's no need to hit back four times. Downstrike (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway... the additions do seem better suited to the criticism article rather than the main JW article. If retained, the first sentence should drop or modify the introductory sentence fragment. Remove statements about the documentary being "award-winning" (argument from authority) or indicate how those awards are relevant to the comments about being a cult. Engardio's definition of the ambiguous term "cult" needs to be clarified. Brown's actual words about not being "cultic" would also be helpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone else wishes to add any citation I'm supplying here to the main Criticisms article before I get around to it, they are welcome to do so. However, my interest at this point is improving the NPOV of this subsection, because it is perceived by the public as biased, and it not only provokes accusations here on the talk page, but I now see that it provokes vandalism on the article. In regrettable fact, this subsection is biased, presenting four citations of a controversial opinion, but presenting the only one citation of a rebutting opinion, when more are available. If further citations of rebuttals do not belong here, then neither do most of the citations they rebut; if one rebuttal citation is sufficient, then one citation of the opinion it rebuts is sufficient. The excess only serves to provoke the public.

I am willing to downsize this addition, as you and LTSally suggest. I would prefer to quote directly from Brown, but the page's copyright statement specifically prohibits quoting without the consent of the author. If Brown has granted permission, I will gladly quote him. I haven't had time to attempt to approach him about it. Downstrike (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Downstrike, your comments don't help resolve this issue at all. Assume good faith, address the problem and avoid personal attacks. My comments are a sincere suggestion, because your proposed addition wanders all over the place without actually saying anything authoritative at all. I'm sorry you can't see that, but don't accuse me of retaliation against ... whatever it is you think I'm retaliating against. LTSally (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, take your own advice. You threatened that if I make a particular effort to balance the POV presented, you would make it even further out of balance, under the pretense of providing "balance". That threat is against the already damaged NPOV of the article, and it is blatantly retaliatory. If you don't want anyone replying to your threats, don't make threats. They don't belong here. Downstrike (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not making threats. I simply resent your personal attacks on me when, as requested, I am discussing your supposed "improvements". Your are undulging in a bit of hyperbole by suggesting the article is "perceived by the public" as biased and it's amusing that you somehow link this to the ongoing vandalism of the article. Idiots have been adding puerile comments to this article as long as it has existed. If you want to add further rebuttals, why not just say .... "Documentary maker Joel Engardio and cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II have also rejected the claims." If you want to add detail, do so at the spinoff article. LTSally (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A threat is a threat, regardless whether you perceive it as a threat.

I tried to assure you that no one is here to hurt you. If you perceive that, or anything I said in that context, as a personal attack, I'm sorry that you perceive it that way. Downstrike (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? LTSally indicated concerns with your proposed edit. If you disagree, present a rebuttal to those points. Stop jabbering.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We were making accusations at each other, and I'm sure it was more of a disgusting than a discussion. Please don't feel obligated to pay any mind to it. Downstrike (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you and LTSally would like to continue discussing the merits of each other rather than the article, then by all means do so at User talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Proposal

Considering comments from LTSally and Jeffro 77 above, and comparing with the current page to make sure I don't have any more snippets of obsolete text embedded, I revise the proposed second paragraph to this:

Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult;

ref>"Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?", The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, pages 5-7</ref>

they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking.

ref>"Do Others Do Your Thinking?", Awake!, August 22, 1978, page 4.</ref>

ref>"Who Molds Your Thinking?", The Watchtower, April 1, 1999, page 22, "You have free will. Exercising it, you can choose to respond to Jehovah’s molding influence or deliberately reject it. How much better to listen to Jehovah’s voice instead of arrogantly asserting, 'No one tells me what to do'!"</ref>

The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader.

ref>Bearing Thorough Witness to the Truth. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 2009. p. 110. The Governing Body follow the leading of the holy spirit of God. Its members do not consider themselves leaders of the people of Jehovah. Rather, as all anointed Christians on earth, they "follow the Lamb, Jesus Christ, wherever he goes."</ref>

Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,

ref> Brown II, John Bowen (2008-04-16), "Cult Watchdog Organizations and Jehovah's Witnesses", Twenty Years and More: Research into Minority Religions, New Religious Movements and 'the New Spirituality', London School of Economics, London, UK: Center for Studies on New Religions, retrieved 2010-03-03 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

with the Center for Studies on New Religions, and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims.

ref> Engardio, Joel P. (2007-04-17). "Myths & Realities". PBS Independent Lens. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2010-03-03.</ref>

ref> Brown II, John B. (2005-06-02), "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anti-cult Movement: A Human Rights Perspective", Religious Movements, Globalization and Conflict: Transnational Perspectives, Palermo, Sicily: Center for Studies on New Religions {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

I'm disabling the citations in my previous proposal, to avoid redundant clutter in the References section. Downstrike (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems there, except I'm not sure that the Rev Brown is with CESNUR. That organisation is an anti-anti-cult organization that presents conferences allowing scholars to produce papers. Brown, a rather colorful character who evidently identifies himself as a gay pagan and is a member of the Tuscon Satanist Community, contributes papers. I don't think he is part of CESNUR. LTSally (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer the wording, "associated with CESNUR", or "published by CESNUR", or have a wording suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

CESNUR doesn't need mentioning. It was a forum for the paper only and belongs only as a cited reference at that point. (At [1] CESNUR says it "does not necessarily agree" with the statements published on its website.) Brown is simply a cult deprogrammer and his statement is based on that qualification or role. LTSally (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are no other objections, I will add this paragraph, with the phrase mentioning CESNUR removed. Downstrike (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone who commented. I've added the paragraph, and I'm disabling the citations in my revised proposal. Downstrike (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoekema et al

This is related to Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Cult2010. Certain so-called "authorities" quoted in this article and elsewhere do not use the term "cult" in a neutral manner; in fact, many ostensible "scholars" believe and advocate that every nontrinitarian Christian religion is a cult. Their opinions may or may not be encyclopedic, but their POV must be labeled. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which authorities? What did they say?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses not a cult supported by other sources other than Jehovah's Witnesses

"But Jehovah's Witnesses do not fit the definition of a cult, either." Independent Lens Jehovah's Witnesses - Myths and Realities http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/myths.html The only ones who make that accusation are 1. religious opposers, usually from evangelical ministers 2. apostates Both have their own self interest in making such an irrelevant claim. JW are a Christian denomination. Natural (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

A website representing the makers of a TV doco on JWs is not a reliable source. At the moment the article contains a reliable source stating the claim and a rebuttal by the WTS which has previously addressed the issue. The lead section of the article describes the Witnesses as a Christian denomination. LTSally (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether JWs are or are not a cult is not at issue and does not need to be proven here. The article states that they have been called a cult, and then gives the alternate opinion that they are not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The authors of Knocking, are as reliable documenters of Jehovah's Witnesses from a cross-section of sociological interpretation as is Beckford or Andrew Holden. They present a filmography or Jehovah's Witnesses that gives several different perspectives, and the website is as valid an opinion on JW as any commentary made on the subject. The subject of JW is explored deeply and is well-researched. So I feel that the PBS documentary is as valid as any of the references in this article. It just approaches it from and unbiased viewpoint, as Wikipedia is supposed to. I agree, with your comment, though, what is stated on the article now is sufficient. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a documentary representing different viewpoints on JWs is not reliable, but books written by former JWs are. Interesting. I guess the only reliable sources are dictated by LTSally and Jeffro. And just make sure that those sources say nothing positive about JWs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk • contribs)

Don't make accusations of me that you can't back up. If you have other reliable sources to add to the article, then do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Superbauer (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It is important to note, however, that while there are some outside sources that do not recognize the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult, there are a large number of conservative denominations that do make that distinction based on doctrinal statements of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Dr. R.C. Sproul is an Evangelical/Calvinist theologian who recognizes them as a cult. Other church bodies such as conservative Lutheran denominations (Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical Synod), and Roman Catholics identify Jehovah's Witnesses not only as cults but as a non-Christian denomination. Whether someone agrees with this point of view or not, the article must make it clear that it is debated whether they are a Christian or non-Christian church body. Even though they could make the claim that they are Christian, then a neutral article must denote that they proclaim themselves Christian and not present it as undisputed fact. Superbauer (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The widespread opinion that they are not Christian is already appropriately stated in the article. Those opinions do not override the plain consistency of the religion's core teachings with the plain defintion of the word 'Christian'. (Whether JW beliefs [or the beliefs of any other religion] are correct or whether other religions don't like them has no bearing on such a definition.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent Thinking Botting reference and statement

In the criticism section, the common statement by JW about apostate sources is that apostates often quote JW out of context, and thus give the wrong impression. This is the case with Heather Botting, a former JW in her book concerning the subheading Independent Thinking. The context with which the application of this thought is made has to do with warnings concerning drifting into immorality, which many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses drift into each year. The way the Wiki article is worded might need to be modified, if this statement is made, because the Wiki article is third removed from the source, commenting on a commnetary. This is the original source:

21 How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s visible organization. For example, God’s organization has from time to time given warnings about listening to certain types of immoral and suggestive music, and about frequenting discos and other types of worldly dance halls where such music is played and people are known to engage in immoral conduct. (1 Corinthians 15:33) Yet certain ones have professed to know better. They have rebelled against such counsel and have done what is right in their own eyes. With what result? Very often they have become involved in sexual immorality and have suffered severe spiritual harm. But even if they have not been so affected, are they not reprehensible if others follow their example and suffer bad consequences?—Matthew 18:6.

The point of this is not to not think about anything and let the Watchtower do the thinking for you, like some sort of robot, but rather, to be humble and accept counsel in terms of avoiding things that can lead to sexual immorality, which in fact happens daily among JW and is something that is warned against in the Bible. "Do not be practicing fornication as some of them practiced fornication...." "Fornicators will not inherit God's kingdom". "Bad association spoil useful habits." 1 Cor 15:33. So, it is the Bible's counsel itself, not rules or ideas imposed by the Watchtower. That's the idea. Most people accept the fact that one of the purposes of the religion is to uphold and teach morality and it is not so way out an idea, as some ones would like to make it sound. Make sense? --Natural (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The example from the January 15, 1983 Watchtower you quote is stated directly in that article as exactly that - an "example". It does not at all mean they are saying that independent thinking is only bad if it might lead to fornication. "Independent thinking" is elsewhere cited in JW literature in regard to questioning JW doctrines (Watchtower 15 July 2006), including changes in JW doctrines (Watchtower 15 January 1983); doing what the elders tell them (Watchtower, 15 September 1989; Watchtower 1 February 1987); adhering to JW interpretations of Bible principles (Watchtower 15 August 1988, Watchtower, 1 November 1987) etc.

You're still in love with the word 'apostate' aren't you. See if you can go a week without using that particular thought-terminating cliché.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After typing what is below, I read all of the references in the Watchtowers above. The citations don't really prove your point. It's not designed for the purpose of blind obedience as these statements imply. I'll go through it specifically point by point, or article by article, but for example, on the article on elders, there are three articles. The first two are encouraging the elders to be kind, reasonable, base their counsel on the Bible, etc. It isn't like, the elder rules, and what he says goes, and he is in authority so we have to listen to whatever they say. That isn't how it is in the congregation, any congregation. And not listening to the counsel of an elder doesn't get you kicked out. I've done that before. After a while, I had a change of heart, but they were patient with me, and understanding, and then, felt, afterwards, that their counsel, which was mild, Biblical and loving, wasn't so bad. It takes humility to realize that there are some who can help us, use the Bible better than us. If we are proud, we rebel against any suggestions and counsel. It really isn't any different at work. The first article quoted there, it presents it reasonably, not dictatorially, not authoritarianally, or in blind obedience. The other article deals with complaining or murmuring, not blindly obeying elders or the organization. If I have an idea to present in school (at work), if it's done complainingly, it probably won't get anywhere. If I am a constant complainer, I'll probably be let go at the turn of the year, no one can work with someone like that. It is a little different with religion, but a similar idea. If you have something to say, do it respectfully, and tactfully, not to offend people or cause divisions, and it will much more likely be considered or accepted. --Natural (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the definition of an apostate: Apostasy definition: 1. Renunciation of a previous faith. Abandonment of a previous loyalty. Defection. Miriam-Webster.com Dictionary Apostate: One who has abandoned his religious faith, political party, one's principles or cause. Greek aphistanai - to revolt Farlex Free Dictionary. Thesauraus - apostate - noun - a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend, etc. other words: deserter, ratter, turncoat, recreant, renegade, quitter - a person who gives up too easily. traitor, defector. adj. - Not faithful to religion, party or cause. unfaithful. Farlex Free Dictionary -

The reason this is an important point, is that if one decides to join another religion, that is different, if one drifts away from one's religion, that is different, but a person who actively pursues undermining his former religion, has some issues that he needs to deal with, usually many sided. Many times there is wounded pride that needs to be recovered, personal issues with persons of authority, or rebellion against authority, rebellion against one's parents, etc. So, it is good to understand the motives of an apostate, and it is an appropriate label for those who can only see the negative in Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses are not all bad, their teachings have done, and are doing a lot of good for a lot of people. It is not 100% bad, and it's not 100% perfect, but for many people, it is a very good thing, life-saving, in their life. They benefit from the structure, as many of us do. So, these apostates, they only see the negative side of things, and their viewpoint is not balanced. You have to have other things you do in life besides religion, some hobby, some schooling in other things, something to occupy your mind, art or poetry, or literature, outside reading.

But the apostate, is like all or nothing. It's not like that in reality. So, a lot of the statements in this article critisizng JW are like, "all or nothing". God is not like, and Jehovah's Witnesses are not like that. Like, for example, Heather Botting. I've read 1984, and her books is skewed. She probably had issues with her mother and father, rebelling against them, and maybe they were overbearing. But Jehovah's Witnesses are a record of integrity under the Orwellian-like oppression of the Third Reich and USSR, East Germany, for decades, they experienced from the side of persecution the 1984 novel, in China also, and came out with integrity. The book 1984 is a story of breaking someone's spirit and integrity. So these people, there books are quotable, but the only deal with one microcosm of the issue. That is why they aren't reliable as sources of opinion. They are skewing things, seeing it very narrowly, and selfishly, without looking at the whole picture. If you are going to leave, leave, but why are you going to spend your whole life fighting it? If there is something better, what then? I'll be a part of it for sure. --Natural (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you may genuinely be unaware of the contradictions of what you have stated here. You give a dictionary definition of 'apostates', which says nothing at all about people who are 'all or nothing', or who have no other interests but trying to bring down their former religion, or who necessarily criticize their former allegiances at all. You then say that not all JWs are 100% bad, but that "the apostates" (meaning only former JWS) are bad, always saying everything they can that is negative about JWs. Do you consider apostates who leave other religions to join your religion to be just as reprehensible, critical, and rebellious as apostates who leave yours?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, "if one decides to join another religion, that is different, if one drifts away from one's religion, that is different, but a person who actively pursues undermining his former religion, has some issues that he needs to deal with, usually many sided" is incorrect. None of these situations are different with regard to what is defined by the word 'apostate'. In reality, some apostates fade away, some change religion (some become JWs), and some are outspoken critics. And even of the outspoken critics, it is still not valid to broadly characterise the motives of all of them as necessarily bad.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating development. When the Watchtower gives a clear, unequivocal warning to Witnesses to obey the Watch Tower Society without question and thus avoid the "danger" of thinking for themselves, Naturalpsychology turns it into a "claim" by "critics", as if the Governing Body made no such statement. Yet the article (page 27) is explicit in its command to follow, not the Bible, but the "direction of God’s organization". If this article is going to be accurate and neutral, editors need to be honest with source material rather than trying to hide or twist uncomfortable facts. LTSally (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Jeffro, you are generally reasonable in your edits, you seem to be allowing a reasonable amount of clarification, but the apostate way of thinking is the negative, all or nothing thing. That is the type of thing in this article or any article that is thought closing. We need to be balanced in the presentation of criticism on JW. It is not as clear cut as it is trying to be presented, like JW are a dictatatorial, authoritarian religion. That is not how it is, although you can refer to some quotes which give the "opinion" "biased-opinion" only from apostates, no one else really has an issue with that. The Watchtower lesson this week was focused on "love". That is the cornerstone of true Christianity. The Watchtower acknowledged that we are commanded to preach, but that Jesus stated that "love" was the identifying mark of true Christians. Love is emphasized, that has to be balanced out with obedience, it is not blind obedience, it is obedience out of love. "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3. --Natural (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The contrast you present above with "the apostate way of thinking" is a generalised ad hominem attack on 'apostates'. (Not doing well with going a week without using the word 'apostate' are you?) JWs is a minor religion, so for the most part, there are not a lot of available sources about the religion other than from the religion itself (~~almost~~ entirely from the Society rather than members publishing material independently), and from people who have left the religion. Though the article would likely benefit from more neutral sources, you should not presume in their absence (argument from silence) that neutral sources would disagree with what 'apostate' sources say. Instead, the article presents what critics say and what the Society says, neither are presented as facts but as views of those sources. Religious rhetoric about love, common to many religions, is not relevant here, and the term "true Christianity" as used here is similar to the no true Scotsman fallacy employed by other religions to say JWs aren't Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here once again Naturalpsychology, is that you are filling this page with foolish generalisations about "apostates", which has very little to do with the purpose of this talk page. As I pointed out earlier, Nathan Knorr, born into the Reformed Church, was an apostate. Fred Franz, raised as a Presbytarian, was an apostate. Don Adams, the current WTS president, is an apostate, having been raised in an Episcopal family and renouncing that faith to become a Jehovah's Witness. You have been invited many times to identify specific points in the article sourced to former Witnesses that is presented in a biased fashion. If you can't do that, drop the point and move on. LTSally (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference being, it isn't changing one's religion that makes one an apostate, but when makes it one of one's goals in life to do all that one can to discredit or slander, bring into reproach one's former religion, then that makes one an apostate. My father was Dutch Reformed before he became a Jehovah's Witness, but he has no issues with that church in particual, other than he found what he felt to be a better way. The same with Knorr or Franz, Franz hasn't singled out the Presbetyrian Church to try to bring out every detail of the private life of the founders of that church that might bring it into reproach. That type of thing is a tactic of, I don't want to say the word again, to offend Jeff, we'll just say the "a" word. --Natural (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for again demonstrating your distorted view of this term, as indoctrinated by Jehovah's Witnesses to demonize the term. Go back to the dictionary definition you provided. Keep reading it until you understand that what you wrote immediately above is false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, are you actually claiming that in becoming a JW, your father did not 'renounce a previous faith', 'abandon a previous loyalty', and became "One who has abandoned his religious faith", that he became "disloyal" and 'deserted' the Dutch Reformed Church?? The actual definition of "apostate" says nothing at all to suggest that the term only includes those who are outspoken about discrediting their former allegiance—an entirely JW jargon application. Do you need a Venn diagram?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your definition, not the dictionary's. You have decided who among ex-Witness authors has "made it a goal in life" to slander their former religion. On that basis you view any and every statement they make as suspect. That is a foolish and unhelpful view, particularly when considering the statements in the article attributed to those sources. LTSally (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Older ones who preach and those limited by health

The line about even old people and those limited being required to preach, makes it sound like JW have a whip at the back of old people to force them to preach. That really wouldn't be an accurate presentation of the way it is encouraged, and feel it is better to leave that line out. The Watchtower actually makes the point the opposite way, that those who are limited by old age and bad health, should be happy and not sad that they can't do more.So the line here had it a little backwards.--Natural (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the wording to retain the relevant import of the statements and present what is actually stated in the cited source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference on blood transfusions and paranoia.

This line, I don't feel should be included. The author of this article has no identity. His email is not valid on the reference page, it came back returned. And he does not identify himself as a doctor, or anyone other than someone who seems to work for an insurance company. So, even though it is published, the author is more like giving an editorial, rather than a professional opinion, which would be something of a requirement in the medical field to make the statements he makes in that article. Pretty much, anyone can say anything that they might want to on that subject, but he provides no evidence, but states his own bias on the subject. Who is the author of the article? I couldn't find any information on him anywhere, and would be interested in knowing who he is.

They claim Watch Tower literature uses exaggeration and emotionalism to create paranoia and distort the facts about transfusions.[326]--Natural (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is published in a respected journal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The journal is respected, but who is the author? There is no indication, he has no identity other than a name. In seriousness, if you find out who he is, that would be good.--Natural (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A Google search shows he is a medical ethicist at the Department of Neurology, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division Portland, Oregon and a member of the Regional Ethics Council. As far as I know he is not an apostate. LTSally (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that Muramoto is stating "his own bias" about blood transfusions is typical of your own prejudices and narrow thinking. He is a doctor writing for a professional readership in a professional journal that would have strict requirements for inclusion and is expressing his professional view. You have never heard of him and know nothing of any of his previous views, but because they differ from your own intolerant, restricted outlook you declare he is biased. What a strange, sad world you live in. LTSally (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You define the word irony. Natural's so called "intolerant, restricted outlook" is exactly the same as your's only from a different viewpoint. You are as intolerant of his belief as he is of yours. It seems you too live in an equally strange sad world, by your own definition.Jamie (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was sincerely asking who he was, all I could find on him is that he worked for Kaiser, and that he wrote this article. So if this research is valid, I appreciate it. I'm going to look into it to see.--Natural (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1974 article on this point outdated

This article is from 1974, and if the same point was being made today, it would be worded differently. The writing of these type articles has changed a lot since 1974. If that type of thing is in a history section, that would be fine, but this is from 36 years ago. It's changed a lot since then. These are the types of criticisms from Ray Franz, from that time period. That is why Franz's criticisms aren't really valid today, from his book Crisis. Many of them have been addressed. There have been organizational changes in those years, and changes in the way of presenting information. The same with the reference for "a prophet in their midst." They don't have those type of articles anymore and the current publications don't really refer to them. --Natural (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is rather incoherent. What are you talking about now? LTSally (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only a few references to 1974 in the article. Of those, some relate to JW publications speaking approvingly of JWs selling their homes in the lead-up to 1975 - those statements are specific to the period in question, and therefore "a history section". The next is a statement about the translators of the NWT - no change has occurred with regard to the Society's views of the translators of the NWT. Those statements cannot validly be the focus of Natural's complaint. The next '74 reference is in relation to whether JWs should question "the organization". Whilst it is true that in more recent JW literature "trust" and "organization" more often appear in articles soliciting donations of valuables including "trusts", a 2003 Watchtower does state that "our trust in Jehovah is manifested when we turn to him in prayer, when we seek direction from his Word, and when we look to his organization for guidance." (w03 9/1 p. 13 par. 2) Obviously there has been no change in attitude about unquestioning trust in the organization. It is therefore unclear what Natural is concerned about. Natural, have you read 'Crisis'? If you have not, how can you claim that its criticisms have been addressed?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He has explained previously that he read bits of it by accident. On that basis he has formed a very strong view that nothing Franz says can be trusted. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I hate when I accidentally read stuff.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a link to membership data

I would like simply to add this to external links:

Statistical Profile of Jehovah's Witnesses at the Association of Religion Data Archives

ARDA is a highly respectable digital library at Pennsylvania State University, and as you can see the page I link to is simply detailed statistical data on this religious denomination.

Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Lann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. LTSally (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the link per se, but it might be also/better suited to Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heirarchal Arrangement

It would seem that heirarchal arrangement might not be the best description. The book Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Frank Mead, originally,newer version by other authors, has a different view. Will provide a quote on that, but heirarchal, today, is not really accurate. That might have been said pre-1975, at the time of Penton's criticisms, before the arrangements of committees, but today, there is so much dispersion of authority, that a different or more accurate view would be more appropriate. --Natural (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of Governing Body committees hasn't changed the hierarchy. Local congregations are overseen by circuit and district overseers, wjo report to national branch offices, which are in turn given directions by the Governing Body throuogh its committees. The absence of a hierarchy would return to the earliest structure of Russell's day, when local congregations established their own teaching programs, appointed their own elders and operated independently of Brooklyn or Pittsburgh. LTSally (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a neutral quote, not from an apostate, or from Jehovah's Witnesses,

Handbook of Denominations in the United States, "Administration of the group changed during Rutherford's presidency. The governing body today is in the hands of older and more "spiritually qualified" men who has their judgments on the authority of Scripture. This is not considered a governing heirarchy, but an imitation of early apostolic Christian organization." Then it goes on to described circuits and districts, as well as the headquarters in Brooklyn, Bethel and so on.

Source Handbook of Denominations in the United States. Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, Craig D. Atwood. Abington Press, Nashville. 2005.

These are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and they write about over 100 denominations in the US. This can be considered a neutral and unbiased, authoritative source on any religion in the US.--Natural (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The author's wording that this is not considered a governing hierarchy is clearly a reference to the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is only Jehovah's Witnesses that also believes their authority structure is "an imitation of early apostolic Christian organization". LTSally (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the Handbook of Denominations clearly indicates that it is the JW religion which considers their leadership to not be a hierarchy. Additionally, the suggestion that "today, there is so much dispersion of authority [than in the past]" supports definition of the structure as a "hierarchy".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire section, possibly other parts, violates the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. I had tried to make some modifications to adjust it, they were deleted, so am looking for comments on that, before posting it on the Wikipedia NPOV board. --Natural (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some former Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have accused the religion of being a false prophet for making those predictions, particularly because of assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God.[288][289][290] Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians should not question what God tells them through his organization.[291] Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions[292] and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.[12][293]

The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet.[294] It says its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible[295] and that its predictions were not claimed as "the words of Jehovah".[294] It admits some of its expectations have needed adjustment because of its eagerness for God's Kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth".[296]

[edit] Social criticisms Watch Tower publications teach members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being fully obedient to the organization,[297][298] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[299][300] Its frequent calls for loyalty, and its judicial system that can order the expulsion and shunning of disobedient members, have led to criticism that the religion's leadership is autocratic and dictatorial.[301][302][303][304] Critics quoted by Edmond Gruss call the Watch Tower organization a cult, noting the veneration of it by its members, and asserting that Witnesses let their leaders think for them.[305] Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult;[306] they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking.[307][308] They also state that they do not venerate their "leaders" and that the Governing Body do not consider themselves to be "leaders".[309]

Which specific parts of WP:NPOV do you believe those sections are violating? By presenting the criticisms and then a Watch Tower response, this provides the balance required under that policy. LTSally (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians should not question what God tells them through his organization.[291] Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions[292] and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.[12][293]

This would be a biased paragraph.

Wiki: Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.

NPOV

Also, if Edmond Gross is going to be used, he must be clearly identified as a former Jehovah's Witness or apostate, rather than critic. That he himself is disfellowshipped or dissasociated. In other words, he is criticizing, making some pretty heady claims, but he has a pretty strong bias and reason for bias also.

In other words, if you quote Nazis, for example, on Jews, you can quote from the Mein Kamf, and say that Hitler was a respected author. But he is biased. The same here, you can find books you can quote from that are published to make one's point, but they have a strong bias already, so, your article is going to reflect that strong bias.

The false prophet, mind control, these are fringe theories, these are a little way out, always from apostates, not from unbiased sources. These type of fringe theories really aren't the type of thing that you will find in an encyclopedia or other unbiased source. Except, really, in discrediting that a little bit way out idea.

Also, the cult accusation. This one says JW are a cult. JW say that they are not a cult. Just by raising that accusation, you make people start to think that that possibility is real. So, it's a biased thing.

It's like saying, "my uncle is a child molester, he molested me 10 times. Uncle J denies it, says he never did it." So by raising that issue, whether he did it or not, you still succeeded in damaging his reputation.--Natural (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The accusation that Witnesses are a cult is a common one. The fact that the Watchtower has published an article discussing, and rejecting, that accusation, indicates that they, too, acknowledge the view is widespread and needs addressing. Your extract from the Wikipedia policy on achieving NPOV answers your own question. A claim is made, a response is presented, balance is achieved. Yes, many sources themselves may come from an author who has a bias, either pro (as in Macmillan) or anti (as in Gruss), but what's important here is that it is presented in an editorially neutral manner. I believe it is. LTSally (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural, you seemed to be confused about the difference between editorial bias (as addressed at NPOV), and discussion of a controversial issue as cited in third party sources. Articles should not omit a controversial issue on the basis that the existence of a controversy is not neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Point being, these paragraphs are lopsided in presenting one side of the idea, currently, wanted to discuss that point first. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on identifying Gruss as a former Witness, however. I've added that detail. LTSally (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewording to clarify thought

The sentence structure in this line was difficult to follow. This change was made, and hopefully, makes it more coherent and more accurately reflects the thought trying to be expressed. --Natural (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the current world order will be destroyed at Armageddon, and have stated that only they “have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system".[15] they have also acknowledged that only God will decide who survives.[16

Blood Transfusions and Coercion

A few thoughts, please on these sentences:

Critics also claim that Witness medical patients have been coerced to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions.[22][23]

The reference cited here #23, states that the practice of disfellowshipping, might be conidered to be an indirect form of coercion. That is, if a person might be (not always) disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion, then, in Canada, not the US., ths might be interpreted, by some legal ethicists, as being subtly coercive. This is the source material also for the Vancouver Sun article (I believe) in the previous reference. So, to say that they have been accussed of using coercion, makes is not really the point of the references here, but that disfellowshipping can be interpreted by some as an indirect form of coercion, in the one country of Canada. This point is open to disucssion.--Natural (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added another reference that states that Witnesses have been coerced by elders into refusing blood transfusions. I am curious, however, about the statement you added that said "Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that decisions on blood transfusions are one's personal decision in this matter". I think any Witness who made such a claim would swiftly be expelled. In view of such statements as "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or the four primary components of blood—namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. They also do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion" (OKM Nov 2006,) ... I wonder if you have any Watch Tower citations to support your claim? Is this "new light"? LTSally (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

Two points in this article that I feel are WP:FRINGE theories, that is mind control, and second false prophet. These are accusations from two apostates, and don't have any reputable support in unbiased sources. It is difficult and unnecessary to defend against these very biased accusations, which are not accepted in any other sources except the most serious sources of apostasy. Don't feel a Wikipedia article is the appropriate place to bring up these type of accusations. --Natural (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society has published material specifically addressing both these claims,(e.g. Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 137: "If Someone Says—‘My minister said that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the false prophets’"; The Watchtower 15 February, 1994 p. 6 Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult) therefore they recognize that these issues have not been raised merely by "two apostates" (otherwise they would simply not draw attention to them), and are therefore not simply 'fringe' criticisms of the religion as you claim. It is not necessary for you to defend the accusations here, simply present what the critics have said and what the Watch Tower Society has said.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user Jeffro77. User Natural, I hope I don't overstep the bounds of propriety if I remind you that an argumentum ad hominem is not reason enough to completely discredit a source. Remember, Charles Manson could claim the earth orbits around the sun and it doesn't mean he's wrong just because he's a lunatic. --Sungmanitu (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws, Naturalpsychology. Fringe theories include the fake Moon landing or government conspiracies on Rockwell or that aliens are poisoning our water supplies. Many Christian publications have made the explicit, and reasonable, suggestion that the WT organization, which describes itself as a prophet organization, has led people up the garden path with their predictions of specific dates when events would happen. LTSally (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The spirit of the arguement is noted. Unfortunately this is a issue that can't be avoided. Protestants would like call Catholics Idolators. Maybe a subsection under criticisms that deal with former members? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits on the Social Criticism section

I've edited the social criticism section to better facilitate a NPOV according to the Wiki standards. First, that any criticisms are clearly defined as being such, rather than as stating facts about the Watchtower's comments ,as Wiki clearly states. Also, that both sides of the issue are presented. I still feel that referring to 1967 material for "proof" of criticisms is groundless, as things are much different today 42 years later. But I've left those in for the present. I would prefer taking out references to "false prophet" and "mind control" and might consider posting a directive on that under FRINGE theories, but for the present have added some edits that help to balance out these accusations by a two apostates. Also, the blood transfusion criticisms under social criticisms, needed to be edited to more accurately reflect the nature of the criticisms themselves, as well as the response by JW on this subject. If there are any specific issues with these edits, kindly post them here for discussion before editing, and give us, please an opportunity to respond. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of your inappropriate changes. On some of the most important points: Warnings in Watch Tower literature about "independent thinking" are specifically from those publications, they are not statements from "critics". "Encourage" is JW jargon for "teach/direct/instruct". We don't need to mention that Franz is a former member every time his name is mentioned. Whether blood transfusions are good or bad is not relevant to whether JWs are coerced not to accept them, and news articles referenced by you are not articles officially cited by JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind control

Under the "Social criticisms" section, someone has added the line, 'Andrew Holden, who has studied Jehovah's Witnesses, rejects the idea of "mind control," stating that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an act of free will, and that most whom he interviewed felt an increased measure of personal well being and happiness in their association with the religion'. Where does he reject the accusation of mind control? On pages 32-33, he discusses the "intense loyalty demanded of each individual ... (that) demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism ... The Watch Tower Society controls millions of people who are denied freedom of speech ... freedom of conscience yet, paradoxically, devotees regard themselves as free, and non-members as oppressed on 'in shackles'. (Witnesses) must adhere to (WTS) teachings, which means subjecting themselves to ... judicial committees that claim the right to function as a literal government."

On page 67 he says of the method of instruction at meetings: "Despite the fact that the Witnesses claim to reason from the scriptures, their theology is taught in a highly mechanistic fashion, and written publications encourage the members to lean almost by rote."

In chapter 8 Holden interviews people who have left the religion and they speak very loudly of the level of fear that prevents many Witnesses from leaving, despite the fact that they no longer believe the doctrines. Their views are as valid as current members he interviewed who were happy in the religion. And the "act of free will" in joining the religion does not remove the possibility of subsequent mind control for baptized members. That response to the suggestion of mind control is a straw man argument.

Given the foregoing, I'd be surprised if Holden says what is stated above, which means it is either synthesis or pure opinion. A page number for his explicit rejection of the claim will help clear things up. LTSally (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Sally, I had posted the page reference where Holden states, that he does not agree with the idea of brainwashing, or anything similar, and your apparently removed that a week ago, as soon as the semi-protection was removed, then the edits were made to revert the article back to the biased style that you are apparently trying to achieve. I'm going to post a complaint now about your edits here, and apparently, not allowing any type of defense, balancing or counterargument for the apostate ideas that you want to promote on the Wikipedia webpage. It would seem that you desire only to criticize and present material that criticizes Jehovah's Witnesses on Wikipedia. But when evidence is presented contrary, not to remove your critical quotes, but to balance them with the other side of the issue, you remove them from the article. So I'd prefer now, to go to the Wikipedia board and post a complaint, and possibly ask for some arbitration, because you are very difficult to work with on this, your view is strictly one-side and clearly you have an antipathy to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it makes any editing or adding of additional information very difficult. Why did you remove all of the additional information that I added to the article? Thanks. Natural (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

I made this edit, [2], removing a false claim you inserted. In reference to allegations of mental isolation and mind control, you added the words 'Other social commentators reject this type of thinking, referring to it is as "sensationalism"' and sourced this to Holden, page 7. On page 7, only one sociologist (Holden) states his opinion, and that is about the contrast between the happy Witnesses he met and the "generally negative profile which religious movements have been given over the years by the popular press." He then goes on to refer to tabloid press stories of families torn apart by religious maniacs demanding total compliance. There is nothing in that wording to support your claim that Holden is referring to the specific measured claims of Franz. Your latest edit, quoted at the top of this thread, repeats the false claim that Holden rejects the idea of mind control, and this time fails to provide any page number. As stated above, Holden makes repeated reference in his book to the Watch Tower Society's strong demands for total control over people's lives, so it is a nonsense to suggest Holden is rejecting the issue of mind control at that point. In short, you are reading into his work words that are not there. LTSally (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive cleanup

I plan to move all of the archives from "archive #" to "Archive #", for consistency, and so that our format will be compatible with handy templates that dynamically display the archive links and allow them to be searchable. If anyone opposes, please speak up before I do too much. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading literature from other religions

This article says nothing about not reading literature from other religions, or about reading of anything critical of JW. Rather, it warns against negative apostate ideas. Also, it warns against falling prey to philosophies of persons who try to discredit the Bible. It says nothing about reading of it, but of falling prey to it. JW are against, specifically reading apostate literature, because it is often times very negative, and also, it often times misrepresents the true facts of the matter. So the statement,

Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization[311][312] or scriptural material published by other religions.[313][314]

is not correct with the references provided, and only correct insomuch that it is an accusation made by Ray Franz. --Natural (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

May 1, 2000 p. 9 pars. 6-7 Firmly Uphold Godly Teaching ***

7 Consider another source of potentially damaging information—the flood of ideas published by some scientists and scholars who challenge the Bible’s authenticity. (Compare James 3:15.) Such material appears frequently in mainstream magazines and popular books, and it can erode confidence in the Bible. Some individuals take pride in weakening the authority of the Word of God with endless speculations. A similar danger existed in the days of the apostles, as is clear from the apostle Paul’s words: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”—Colossians 2:8.

The March 15, 1986, WT article does tell Witnesses they should not read literature by "apostates" and later (paragraph 13) says that books "filled with slander and half-truths" should also not be read. That direction is not limited to authors who the WTS chooses to label as apostates. Nor is it stated how a Witness is to determine whether a book proffered by a householder is filled with slander and half truths without reading it. However I agree the general thrust of the WT article is about "apostate" books and I'll add that to the article.

As for reading literature by other religions, the Questions from readers in the WT cited, (May 1, 84) does say that "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive" and tells Witnesses not to accept it. Another WT article, "Limping upon two opinions" (WT 67, Aug 15) tells Witnesses to shun literature by other religions, so I'll add that as a reference. LTSally (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of synthesis and original research, LTSally, as you work with this kind of material. Franz isn't the ideal source for explaining what the Witnesses believe. If you're going to say "the Watch Tower Society instructs X or Y", then X or Y had better show up very clearly in Watchtower publications. In the quotes mentioned, from what I understand, the WT instructs members to be cautious; the WT does not clearly teach members to never read any "apostate" or other-religion material. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society prepared an entire article stating that JWs don't read material from other religions (except information about other religions that has been filtered through a JW publication such as What Has Religion Done for Mankind?): "Questions From Readers—Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses decline to exchange their Bible study aids for the religious literature of people they meet?" (The Watchtower, 1 May 1984, p. 31) In that article, they state "So it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive." After that, they state that "some" such literature might be from 'apostates', but the article includes all materials from other religious groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, thanks for the cautionary advice over synthesis. Stern WTS warnings over "apostate" literature leave no room for ambiguities, however. From the Watchtower, May 1, 2000: "When sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda ... Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking. Exposing ourselves to apostate teachings through the various means of modern communication is just as harmful as receiving the apostate himself into our homes. Never should we allow curiosity to lure us into such a calamitous course!" From the Watchtower, November 1, 1987: "Having this accurate knowledge, who would become so curious as to pay any attention to apostate mouthings? ... False religious propaganda from any source should be avoided like poison! Really, since our Lord has used “the faithful and discreet slave” to convey to us “sayings of everlasting life,” why should we ever want to look anywhere else?" (emphasis mine). The Watch Tower Society repeatedly warns Witnesses against becoming "curious" about anything critical written by former Witnesses and in the May 84 WT mentioned above, it says that Witnesses "do not make a practice of exchanging valuable Bible study aids containing Scriptural truth for religious literature that disseminates error or apostate views". In the Watchtower lexicon, all literature from other religions contains "error" and satanic propaganda to lure people away from the "true God" and his "true religion". It therefore should be avoided. The statement in the Criticisms section, then, is fair and accurate. LTSally (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again this line of reasoning is using SYNTHESIS to get your point across. The line of reasoning is the apostate line of reasoning. These are the accusations found only in apostate literature. That's the POV that is being presented in this article. The synthesis and reasoning is apostate.--Natural (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is "the apostate line of reasoning"? Go back to the dictionary definition before ranting Watchtower propaganda about sneaky apostates trying to cause trouble.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses have no list of books that it "labels" apostate.--Natural (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone said, "it is harmful to read children's books [not written by publisher xyz]," would you require a list of all children's books?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The November 1, 1987 article is entitled Are You Satisfied with Jehovah's Provisions. The context in which the above quoted statement is made is dealing with false religious propaganda, and specifically apostate propaganda, both of which are designed to lure people away from truth. It doesn't say that JW cannot read literature from other religions, that is the editor and apostates taking it to the next level. The Watchtower library in Bethel, and most Jehovah's Witnesses, especially many elders, have many Biblical references from other religions besides JW, myself included. What is to be voided is the propaganda type of references. Many of these propaganda resources rely on apostate sources, or are directed against JW to try to lure them away from what JW consider to be the true teachings of the Bible. That specifically is what this article and otehrs liks it is referring to, including the references made above. R. Franz's specific gripe with K. Klein and others, was that he wanted to use certain specific references that K.Klein rejected, so in his book, he accuses K.Klein of being closed minded and that JW only use their own references, which isn't true, and it is taking it again, to the next level, uping the ante without proof or reason other than to make the then current GB look bad, and he look good.--Natural (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's synthesis. "designed to lure people away from truth"??? Isn't Watch Tower literature itself "designed to lure people away from truth" from the perspective of people with other beliefs?? JW 'truth' itself changes over time, so we aren't talking about any absolute truth here, we're talking about what Watchtower literature says is 'truth' at any particular time. "Many of these propaganda resources"??? Which ones? Have you done a survey? How many of them have you read? How do you classify which ones are propaganda? You're mincing words beyond belief, specifically about materials which by your own definition you're not allowed to read, and therefore in no position to offer objective analysis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When the 1984 Watchtower cited above said "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive," it did not classify only certain religious literature, but encompassed literature as identified in the opening question, "the religious literature of people they meet".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, so when the WT (October 15, 2000) writes: "The Bible acknowledges that even after learning Bible truth, there is a danger of spiritual contamination from false teachings ... It is one thing to inform yourself about the origins and beliefs of false religions but quite another to feed on them ... Having found this knowledge of God through the Bible and the Christian congregation and having seen how Jehovah blesses those who are guided by that knowledge, true Christians do not continue listening to false religious teachings", to whom is it referring? Not just the dreaded apostates, this time, but "religious radio and television programs" (see paragraph two). Still synthesis, you think, to say the WTS instructs members to not read literature published by other religions? --User:LTSally 11:38 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I used to vandailise this page and post my disagreements of this religious group. However, I now realise it was wrong, and though I do not necessarily agree with this relious group, I should now have used abuse to put a point across. I am sorry to those who could have been offended and I will not vandalise this page nor any other again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.51.225 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are. Many of us are here because we are passionate about the subject, either for or against, and it's better we direct that energy in a positive way to help produce a better article. LTSally (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, User:HaslandHell/User:I live in hasland![3]. The apologies at both pages were a dead giveaway. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

User:Automyte, if you would like to discuss the merits of the external links you would like to add to JW articles, please do so here. Please indicate notability and reliability of the sites you propose as indicated by WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

This article currently gives wrong or confusing information. The Governing Body of today was not created until the 70's. the article lists MacMillan and Covington, but they were dead or no longer in the Governing Body when it got its modern form. In fact, I have been doubtful for this article for a long time. The article now gives in fact very little interesting information, it is just discussing lots about the history and various (mostly critical) viewpoints. I will ask if the article can be incorporated in Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose any merger, but the appropriate place to discuss this issue is at the article itself and I'll copy this discussion over there. I did raise the problem of names and dates that preceded the formation of the GB at active. There was never any response. LTSally (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses likely to be a spin-off of this article? It seems to me that if they were to be merged, that article would be merged back into this one. I doubt that's desirable.

I also have doubts about much of this article. That's why I recently came to work on it. If either article has incorrect information, it seems to me that the incorrect article should be corrected using sourced information from the article that's correct. Downstrike (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that issues about Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (there are more than a few) should be discussed at Talk there.
Incidentally, all pre-1971 directors (such as A. H. Macmillan) have been recently removed from the article Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and an individual's years of WT directorship are now listed separately at the separate article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaders

The reference to the cult accusations has been covered well enough, but the additional sentence has highlighted a problem with the reference to "leaders".

Section currently reads: "Former Witness Edmond Gruss and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes and Alan W. Gomes, call the Watch Tower organization a cult, claiming it is venerated by its members, and asserting that Witnesses let their leaders think for them. Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult; they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking. The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader. Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II, and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims."

The sentence "The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader" is clearly meant to counter the earlier claim that Witnesses let their leaders do their thinking for them. I think this is becoming an issue of semantics. Yes, Witnesses would claim that Christ is their leader, but the GB as their ... um, governing body, certainly are in charge of doctrines and establishing behavioral norms. If an acceptable alternative to "leaders" can be found, the subsequent sentence can probably be deleted, which would allow Brown and Engardio's counter-argument to connect better with the initial claim. LTSally (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me while I was adding that wording to the article. I wondered if it would help to reverse the order of the last two sentences, but didn't want to introduce any more revision proposals, once we reached an agreement on wording.

However, "its members consider only Christ to be their leader" more clearly counters the claim that "the Watch Tower organization... is venerated by its members", while the claim "that Witnesses let their leaders think for them" is more clearly countered by the statement that Witnesses "need to do their own thinking." Downstrike (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Isaiah 43:10-12 in Article Intro

The last sentence of the second introductory paragraph:

The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10-12, was adopted in 1931.

More specifically, it seems to have been based upon the reading of these verses from the American Standard Version, since The KJV and most other translations say "LORD", rather than "Jehovah" in these verses, and New World Translation wouldn't be published for about 20 more years. The result is that the average Wikipedia user who opens a Bible to these verses isn't going to see their relevance.

I've been to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Bible but haven't found it very helpful in determining whether it's practical to cite the verses from a specific translation; it seems to mention doing so, but seems to assume the reader already knows how. Is there a better guideline? Downstrike (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Jehovah, "...In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals." I think its fine to not cite a particular translation in this case, since the original version apparently uses "Jehovah". ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In contrast, however, the New World Translation inserts "Jehovah" in the New Testament where there is no original document that says "Jehovah". If we were citing a new testament verse from the NWT, then I do believe it would be important to make it clear which translation it came from. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 05:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of this relates to the question about the ASV, from which Jehovah's Witnesses quoted in 1931: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10-12&version=ASV

What are you calling the original version? That would be ancient Hebrew, and very few WP users can read it, or are even aware of the tetragrammaton in it. By and large, the masses are unaware of Bible dictionaries, and think "Jehovah" is something JWs made up when they published the NWT. Downstrike (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have said "original documents" instead of "original version". I was trying to refer to the early Hebrew texts and early translations of them such as the Septuagint and Greek Old Testament manuscripts that include the Tetragrammaton. See my further comments below; the relevance of my comments comes in my conclusion that we don't need to cite a particular English translation. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 18:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From what do you draw the conclusion that most people imagine that JWs made up the name Jehovah?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of propaganda like this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22There+is+no+such+word+as+Jehovah%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B6_____enUS348US348&ie=UTF-8 Downstrike (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Google search results you indicate are hardly an accurate representation of what most people believe. In fact when I restored the quotes in your search, there were about 9400 results (largely talking about translation of the name from other forms of the name), but when I crossed referenced with "Jehovah's Witnesses", there were only four results. Clearly it is not popular opinion that JWs made up the name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. This search result is a lousy example of what I meant. I ran out of time, and threw it in at the last minute. I'm sorry I wasted your time with it. (Second posting of this apology; WP apparently didn't save it last time.) Downstrike (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When you say "it seems to have been based upon the reading of these verses from the American Standard Version", is this your opinion or that of a reliable source? Macmillan's Faith on the March does refer to the ASV when discussing that text, but James Penton (p.62), in what may be a reference to Rutherford's actual talk on July 26, 1931, speaks of the president quoting from Rotherham's Bible. LTSally (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Rotherham's Emphasized Bible uses "Yahweh" in the text of Isa 43:10-12, so it would seem odd if Rutherford choose to introduce the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" by quoting from that particular translation. Ironically, Rotherham apparently came to favor "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" in his commentary writings later in life.
The thread began asking linking to Bible verses. In discussing the origination of the name "Jehovah's Witnesses", the specific translation's wording is indeed significant, and so most editors would likely not object to linking specifically to the ASV's rendering of the passage at issue, namely Isaiah 43:10-12, ASV. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I found that these verses are repeatedly quoted from that translation on Jehovah's Witnesses' web site: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:watchtower.org+watchtower+isaiah+43+%22ye+are+my+witnesses%22&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B6_____enUS348US348&filter=0 Downstrike (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves claim that the name was derived from the ASV translation, then there's no reason not to state that in the article. But if not, then we could simply make a footnote that briefly explains the difference in English translations, with a "see also Jehovah" link. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to look for documentation of the translation upon which they based this decision. However, all I've found so far, are the facts that New World Translation didn't exist yet and that KJV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10-12&version=KJV doesn't contain the name Jehovah in those verses, which eliminates both of those translations, but they did quote these verses from ASV on occasion, and it does contain the name. Downstrike (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that they did base the name on a particular translation, which may or may not be true. I tend to believe that they made the decision based on the general gist of all translations, and the documents from which they came, combined with their own belief that the name "Jehovah" is so important. (Like I said before, when the KJV says "LORD", it should typically be understood to be "Jehovah".) But that's just my guess. In any event, I would also guess that finding a JW statement that says "we pulled the name of our religion from English translation X" is highly unlikely, even if it were the case. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead article of the October 1, 1931 Watchtower is "A New Name", which is probably Rutherford's address given at Columbus, Ohio on July 26, 1931. Even if it's not, it's certainly the official announcement in the magazine of the change of name. The article opens with a text from Isaiah 62:2 and states that it is from Rotherham's Bible. On page 292 it refers to the way Rotherham translates the word "oath" in Isaiah 65:15. On the same page it quotes Isaiah 62:1,2, again from Rotherham. On page 295 it quotes from Isaiah 62:2,3, again from Rotherham. On page 296, the article states: "To the remnant who must deliver the testimony of Jesus Christ and who must make known that Jehovah is the only true God, the most High, Jehovah says: 'Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is no saviour.'" ... And so on. As far as I can see it's the sole use of that scripture in the article and there is no attempt made to link the scripture with any specific translation. It's also significant that when Rutherford does quote Isaiah 43:8-12 at that point, he actually uses a translation with "the Lord" instead of Jehovah. As well, the only translation of the Bible explicitly identified in the entire article is Rotherham's. In view of all this, I see no support for the proposition that the name Jehovah's Witnesses was based on the American Standard Version's version of Isaiah 43, unless a specific Watchtower reference for this is found. LTSally (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. The wording of that quotation matches the KJV. 74.38.20.227 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (wonders how he gets logged out so frequently) Downstrike (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Contradicts Cited Source and Main Article in Sexual Abuse Section

The existing first sentence of the second paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Handling_of_sexual_abuse_allegations

Since May 2002, the Watch Tower Society has instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even where there was only one witness[336] and changed policy to ban any person guilty of sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.

The 2003 source cited in this sentence seems irrelevant to the statement; if anything, the 16th paragraph seems to contradict the first part of the sentence at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/29/eveningnews/main551557.shtml

'"we have long instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even where there is only one witness."'

By comparison, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the main article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse#Reporting_to_civil_authorities

A 1995 memo to elders stated: "Many states make it mandatory that elders report an accusation to the proper authorities but other states do not. In those states where such is required, oftentimes the parent, the guardian, or the accused person himself can do the reporting."[34]

Also, the second sentence of the second paragraph of the main article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse#Reproof_and_restrictions

A 1997 Watchtower article stated: "For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service."[20]

The sources cited say nothing about changes in policy, so any assertion that policy was changed, or that a policy has been in effect since a particular date, is POV unless someone comes up with a reliable source stating when a policy was changed. We already have an erroneous POV stated here, so we should be cautious of making the same mistake again.

Would someone else like to rewrite the sentence in this article, or should I? Downstrike (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If I rewrite this, it might read something like this:

In May 2002, the Watch Tower Society publicized[2002 citation] previously confidential instructions to elders, to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness,[1995 citation] and confirmed policy banning any person guilty of sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.[1997 citation] Downstrike (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer these edits to the suggestion:

In May 2002, ~~the Watch Tower Society~~Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information publicized[2002 citation] the religion's previously confidential ~~instructions to elders,~~ policy instructing elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness,[1995 citation] and ~~confirmed policy banning~~ documenting their policy barring any person guilty of child sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.[1997 citation]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that child abuse should be specified. However, are you implying that the policy barring child molesters from holding responsibility wasn't documented in 1997? Downstrike (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the policy was neither undocumented nor unconfirmed previous to 1997. Perhaps it was "unpublicized"?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there evidence for the statement that the policy was "previously confidential"? Instruction for a particular audience (in this case, the elders) does not necessarily make it "confidential" simply because it is not widely publicized to other audiences. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. Confidential is not an ideal word to express what I was trying to say, but it's as close as I could come at the moment. I really meant to imply that most people had no occasion to be aware of the policy. I still haven't come up with a better word for that. Downstrike (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the policy was not exactly "confidential" previous to 1997. Perhaps it was "unpublicized"?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If changing confidential to unpublicized in the suggested wording above, recommend changing the preceding publicized to released to avoid repetitiveness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggested wording says they "publicized the religion's policy ... documenting their policy". Rephrase to avoid saying the policy documented the policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps:

"In May 2002, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information released the religion's previously confidential policy,[2002 citation] wherein elders are instructed to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness,[1995 citation] and that any person found guilty of child sexual abuse is barred from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.[1997 citation]"--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we are directly mentioning the May 2002 statement implies that it was not previously publicized; I think that the qualifier "confidential" or "unpublicized" could safely be dropped. The proposal seems like a run-on sentence: it's hard to stay with it to the end to understand what it is saying. I suggest we put a period at the 1995 citation location, and start a new sentence that begins by saying "The policy also states that any person found guilty..." or something of the kind. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 09:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to incorporate a number of suggestions, improve the flow of words, improve on the citations provided in the main article, and reconcile the information with the sources cited. However, while doing so, I wasn't able to find a source where the May 2002 date came from. I've come to the conclusion that it was in reference to this web page, because a number of web sites began quoting from it about that time: http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

However, I've determined that it has existed since at least January 1, 1997. [4] Considering all that, here's my latest attempt:

By 1997, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information publicized their policy^[1] for elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness.^[2]^[3] Any person known to have sexually abused a child is prohibited from holding any responsibility inside the organization.^[4]

Downstrike (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that I'm done tinkering with this for now. Downstrike (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch with the 2002 reference. Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse#Jehovah's Witnesses' sex offender database explains that in May 2002 there was a public statement by a religion representative, JR Brown, though their policy was indeed publicly announced prior to that date. As for the second sentence, I believe that it should say "any person known to have sexually abused a child..." ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that wording would be more correct. Meanwhile, I may need to revert to "where required by law to do so" in the first sentence, because I misread the context of "if privacy laws permit". Downstrike (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change as discussed. Downstrike (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Political neutrality 2010-03

WHY DONT jEHOVIAH WITNESSES ENGAGE IN POLITICS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.141.102 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is discussed briefly at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. Any expansion on the topic seems best-located there at that article.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief explanation there. Downstrike (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal criticisms

I would like to point out a conflict under “Doctrinal criticisms” with the sentence: “Its publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet[287][288][289] and is gradually leading his followers to a clearer understanding of his will.”

Because this statement is sandwiched inbetween statements about “predictions” this can cause misleading and even contradictory information supplied by the Watchtower articles that are used as references here and what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. An aveage reader of Wikipedia does not have access to these referenced articles to correct this information.

The Watchtower article states a prophet can be a people who are, “telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities.” The discussion has nothing to do with predictions. Watchtower Society has written in their Insight book under the definition of Prophet, “the fundamental meaning of the word is not that of prediction.” And also stated, “Again it should be remembered that prophesying does not mean solely or necessarily predicting the future. The apostle Paul stated that “he that prophesies upbuilds and encourages….”

Since critics desire to include this information, this subject needs include the meaning of the use of the word “prophet” that these few referenced articles listed discuss. --Saujad (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism that JWs have predicted things that did not happen should remain in the article. However, I don't object to removing the sentence in question for the reasons stated above. The sources for "[287][288][289]" cited above do not specifically mention modern day JWs prophesying in the sense of predicting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the WTs mentioned at the moment, and I'll check them tomorrow, but in the context of accusations of false predictions, reference to the WTS's claim to be a prophet organization at that point is fair and accurate. Most of the actions of this self-proclaimed "prophet organization" were indeed telling followers of "God's will at that time" (that he was judging all humans based on their attitude towards the anointed, was calling the saints to heaven, was requiring a worldwide witnessing campaign) and "warning of dangers and calamities" ("false" religion about to be destroyed, earthquakes and natural calamities to crush the business system and destroy governments, that people would turn on each other in violent rage). It was the failure of just those claims, which were said to be beyond doubt and approved by God, that led to many Witnesses abandoning the organization. The Watch Tower Society has always believed that it "builds up" people by warning that God is about to wreak terrible vengeance on wrongdoers and end the present "evil' world. LTSally (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources used don't support the implied context of being 'prophets' in the sense of predicting. If the statement is retained, it needs to be either clarified, moved elsewhere, or given more relevant sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The January 15, 1959 WT specifically deals with earlier predictions of the demise of the League of Nations and repeats the prophecy that God will destroy the United Nations (para 21). It prophesies that "all the inhabitants of the earth" will be punished with God's sword (para 22), that God will punish specific blocs of nations with his executional sword (para 23) and that God will "slaughter" humans from one end of the earth to another (para 24). The May 1, 1997 WT predicts that "Christendom" and the global political system will be destroyed (para 15). These are messages pronounced by a group that considers itself to be God's "messenger" and "prophet", declaring his will to the world. That section on criticisms deals with claims that the WTS made bold assertions, claiming to be speaking in God's name, of events that did not take place, and the direction from the WTS that members should not question its assertions. I have reworded the section to make more clear the point of the criticism. LTSally (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Many articles in JW literature state their eschatological beliefs as noted above; but the article doesn't state predictions similar to the context that the previous wording implied, in relation to specific timing of events. However, I think your new wording in the article should be ok.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This section is much clearer. But again to make a statement at the beginning about a "prophet" with articles of reference and then in the next sentence begins a discussion of predictions is much the same as the original wording. This is misleading about the use of the word "prophet" as used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the few paragraphs when "prophet" is mentioned it is referring to "a work of being witnesses to all these nations concerning God’s kingdom of good news" (1959 article) not specifically used concerning any predictions. I would think an additional sentence to what the Society's statement of what a "prophet" is nowadays might clarify this. --Saujad (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have highlighted above what the Witnesses regarded as the witness they were bearing to the nations. Much of it, like ancient Jewish prophets, comprised dire warnings of imminent death and destruction. You may not consider these predictions, but they clearly were forecasts of what they believed would soon happen as part of "God's will". Some were attached to specific dates, some were not, but the absence of specific dates does not alter the nature of them as predictions of what they believed lay ahead. LTSally (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have made predictions, but to use articles that are not about making predictions, to make the point that they make prophetic predictions, is still dishonest. Unless we can cite a source in which they claim to be a prophet in that sense, we have no business stating in this context that they claim to be a prophet, (unless we explain that that isn't what they mean by a prophet). I don't believe we're going to find one, because, as the wording now suggests, every time they make a prediction, they point to a biblical prophecy that already exists, and claim some understanding of it.

In order to state that they make prophetic predictions, it may be necessary to obtain such a POV statement from some other source; one that doesn't take Watchtower statements out of context for that purpose, and then allow for an opposing POV - assuming that those POVs can be found in reliable sources. Downstrike (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is clear enough. The Watch Tower Society claims to act as a prophet. It has made predictions, including specific dates, for things that did not eventuate. Critics have thus accused it of being a false prophet because some of those predictions did not come true. It's unclear what you mean when you speak of "prophetic predictions" as if they are something else altogether. A bunch of books are cited, currently at source No. 291, that identifies those false predictions. The current sources No. 287 are not dishonest attempts at anything. They simply support the statement that the WTS claims to be God's prophet for modern times. LTSally (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My explanation was clear enough too, and so was Saujad's. If the article is to say, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", in the context of making predictions, we must cite sources in which they made that claim in that context. If we don't have those sources, including that statement in the context of making predictions serves the purpose of disinformation, and no other. Downstrike (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Prophet prophecy prophesy

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses claim what they explicitly do not. It is true that JW publications have applied the terms "prophet", "prophecy", and "prophesy" to modern figures in a manner that has (at best) confused others, but the JW sense of the terms has been maintained consistently for decades. Here are references from Witness publications showing how they use these loaded terms today:

Jehovah's Witnesses' reference handbook defines "prophecy" thusly: "Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment."–"Prophecy", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 295
Jehovah's Witnesses' reference "encyclopedia" article on "Prophecy" has this in its first paragraph: "Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. As shown under PROPHET, prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages"–"Prophecy", Insight on the Scriptures-Volume 2, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 690-691
"Today, prophesying would apply to any Bible-based teaching that a Christian minister does."–Keep Yourselves in God's Love, ©2008 Watch Tower, page 209
"Those who teach that God’s Kingdom is achieved through political action are false prophets. [Context shows that no attempt at predicting is necessary for one to be called a prophet.]–"False Prophets Today", The Watchtower, February 1, 1992, page 6 [Dozens more examples like this have no hint of predicting in the context.]

How is that not a prediction??? Whether there will be "God's Kingdom" at all, or methods that will or will not result in it are all predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to show that the Watchtower recognizes that a prophet can be someone who makes a prediction. However, considering the content of the first 2 items, I don't believe that was in question. It's only appropriate that this aspect of being a prophet be included among all the others listed. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jerusalem’s false prophets, or teachers, were doing “horrible things” in God’s eyes. ...Yes, these prophets, or teachers, set very bad moral examples themselves and, in effect, encouraged the people to do the same."–"Jehovah’s Judgment Against False Teachers", The Watchtower, March 1, 1994, page 8 [Dozens more juxtapositions like "prophets, or teachers" intended to equate terms.]
"True Christians are prophets in that they teach others God’s Word"–“Would That All Were Prophets!”,Awake!, ©Watch Tower, June 8, 1986, page 9

Wikipedia must be more concerned with intellectually honesty, and Wikipedia must avoid distorting a religion's theological definitions toward some third party's agenda. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to make a statement such as, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", this information should be included, to clarify the statement. Downstrike (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The definitions you provide above support my argument. When the Bible Students and Witnesses were warning the world that it was being judged by God and that he was about to end the system, that is a prediction of what is to come. I'm not suggesting that the WTS was predicting something not contained in the Bible (a meteor is to hit the earth in 2012), but its interpretation of Bible scriptures to claim that God is about to act to bring about widespread slaughter, and that he is about to establish peace on earth in 1925, and that he is to take the anointed to heaven in 1914, and that he will destroy all religions in 1918 and that the Jews would be restored to the Palestine and assume world government are predictions and are thus inextricably linked with prophecy. A more comprehensive list of unfulfilled predictions are contained at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions. LTSally (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the definitions, but I didn't provide them. The historical background is interesting, but apparently not relevant to current beliefs. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point. You seem not to have read the article I mentioned above, "Down with the old, up with the new" in The Watchtower of January 15, 1959. The article initially poses the question of who God is using as his prophet in the world today. Answer: Jehovah's Witnesses. It then goes on to state how God has used the Witnesses (and previously the Bible Students) to declare events in advance, including the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 (which it somehow links with the onset of World War I) and the demise of the League of Nations to which the article declares: "His Word through his witnesses on earth did not fail." You raise the claim of intellectual dishonesty: do you still claim there is no connection between the JWs as a self-proclaimed prophet and their long history of predictions based on their belief that God "put his word in their mouths" (paragraph 14)? I'll say this again. The Witnesses claim to be God's prophet, telling of events in advance. The frequent failure of those predictions has led to claims they are a false prophet. The WTS defence of its actions ("Never ... did they presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’" -- a curious denial in the face of the 1959 claim that God put his word in their mouth) is also included in that section. I don't see any merit in your objection. LTSally (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I hadn't gotten to reading that, because a source that old seems more like historical background than a statement of current belief. I was under the impression that the Criticisms section, and particularly the Doctrinal criticisms subsection should be about current criticisms. However, upon examining it more carefully, I see that it has little, if anything, to say about current doctrines. At this point, I'm inclined to question the relevance of this entire subsection, as anything more than a historical footnote. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old "ancient history" justification for a sudden loss of interest. The Watchtower is quite content to reach all the way back to 1877 to show how reliable it is, but when an encyclopedia reaches back just 50 years to show how wrong the organization is, the dutiful Witnesses decide that's ancient history and not worth reading. You may have a very short focus, but when examining the reliability of an organization that's more than 130 years old, it's helpful to delve back a little further than the last decade. The WTS's habit of burying its mistakes is part of the reason I've delved into the old volumes to dig up all those inconvenient truths so it's all out in the open and people are fully informed. You may choose, like most Witnesses, to question the relevance of all criticism of your religion. That's your business. The criticism, however, remains. LTSally (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical criticisms are certainly germane to the main article here, but should be clearly identified as such. However, the current doctrines, practices, and criticisms should be emphasized, in my opinion. Downstrike has a legitimate point. Always be cautious when making statements about what JWs believe, and make sure that each statement has solid and clear (and preferably current) JW quotes supporting it. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 08:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

JW literature (e.g. the Revelation Climax book and others) still claims that their 'predictions' about 1914 and the League of Nations as a precursor to another international body [the UN] were accurate and are still promulgated in their literature as such (though the first never actually happened as they originally predicted, and the second was indeed fairly predictable). 1914 is stated in JW literature as something they had proclaimed long before the event, without actually mentioning that what they now believe is quite different from what they had predicted. These are therefore not purely issues of historical criticisms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The point in this case is that critics claim that on the basis of its past record Jehovah's Witnesses are a false prophet. They claim that because of its record of grandiose prophecy, clear error and avoidance of blame, newcomers ought to be very wary of its current predictions. In that context its historical record is entirely germane to the criticism. LTSally (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jeffro's comment isn't entirely accurate. "...without actually mentioning that what they now believe is quite different from what they had predicted." I'll grant you that it's not exactly something mentioned each and every time 1914 is brought up, but it's covered several times in their literature, not the least of which is the Proclaimers book. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of not mentioning the earlier beliefs, but the issue of deliberate misrepresentation. As in, (1) "Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ's return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah's witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur." - The Watchtower, 15 June 1954, page 370, para.4. (2) "His rule would be from the heavens. This was a new revelation of great importance to God's people who had been anxiously awaiting his second presence toward the end of the nineteenth century." - The Watchtower, 15 July 1965, page 428. (3) "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence…that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914. Events since that year testify to Jesus’ presence." - The Watchtower, January 15, 1993. p. 5. (The latter statement published the same year as the Proclaimers book). Each of those statements was a blatant lie, because from the start of Rusell's writings until 1933 the WTS taught that his parousia, or coming, had taken place in 1874. How did the Watchtower get away with it? (a) The woeful ignorance of Witnesses about the history of their own religion and (b) the smug knowledge that no dutiful Witness will ever stand up and correct such a lie publicly for fear of being branded a murmurer or fault-finder. LTSally (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Digital Jedi Master, it was not my intention to imply that JW literature never mentions that their views of 1914 changed. It was that they do not usually mention that those views changed when they claim that they had predicted events that would occur in 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be related to the point, but it is not the point in this case. The point in this case is whether Jehovah's Witnesses claim to make prophetic predictions.

On that note, this subsection would be much more relevant if it contained some current information. You mention current predictions. What are their current predictions? Downstrike (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Do they currently make prophetic predictions? What are the criticisms of their current predictions and other doctrines? Downstrike (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As a (presumed) member of the religion, you obviously know the answer to that. There are a host of expectations, repeatedly stated for decades, about the United Nations, the collapse of religions, Witnesses becoming targets of hostility, Christ's intervention, divine rescue, mass slaughter, mass resurrections, a final test etc etc etc. As a sequence of predicted events, these are predictions unique to your religion and are based on your religion's distinctive interpretation of different parts of the Bible and their subsequent synthesis into an eschatalogical doctrine. They are well covered in other Wikipedia articles.

So is interpretation of prophecy the same thing as making the prophetic predictions? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Monastic...

I just added that the Witnesses are Monastic. I myself am a Jehovah's Witness, and I say it is quite Monastic... Most of us spend all our time devoting ourseves to the religion, if that does not make it Monastic... What does? And I must say people may have gotten away with calling Jehovah's Witnesses a cult in the begining,Infact, I myself think of the early days as "cultish" But it is now a MAJOR christian denomination, such a lable is Invalid.210.185.5.180 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Got a reliable source??--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? For what, The fact we spend all our time devoting ourselves to the religion? The deffinition of Monasticism? That we are a major denomination? I do not see anything in my statement that requirs a source... Please enlighten me?210.185.5.180 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your personal definition or opinion is not sufficient for the article to state that JWs are 'monastic'. Please read WP:RS.

JWs are not a "major denomination" in any meaningful sense. In almost all countries, they make up less than 1% of the population, and they only exceed 2% on two small islands (http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm). They are certainly fairly well recognised as having a presence worldwide, but not a "major" one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

JW's sense of devotion to their religion is not monastic in the sense usually ascribed to the term, and the term does not belong in the lead of the article, and certainly not without qualification of the term in the abstract sense you're suggesting. Additionally, JW literature specifically denounces monasticism (e.g. The Watchtower, 15 November 1980, p. 7: "Never would we want to isolate ourselves to the extent of taking up a monastic life.")--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro said it well. Spiritual devotion is not the only element of monasticism. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A neutral lead

I've provided a neutral lead to this entry and look forward to developing it in consultation with other editors, especially Witnesses.

The current draft, sourced on Witness material reads:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation.[1] Legally, they are incorporated as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.[1]"

Rather nicely, I think, the very first descriptive term is "Christian", albeit of the scriptures Witnesses testify to, rather than descriptive of our friends themselves.

Alastair Haines (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take the trouble to read archives 41 to 46 of the article talk page to see the extent of discussion before consensus was reached on the current wording. Your wording is wrong and unacceptable. LTSally (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they read SIX!!! archives first, and do as LTSally tells them?

Sorry, Sally, the first sentence of the article was PoV and based on poor sources that didn't even establish the claim they were making.

If you wish to defend that sentence and those sources, do so, here and now. It shouldn't be too hard since you have all the information in archives 41 to 46 at your fingertips.

I removed no information from the article, I have merely added sourced material.

Stop removing sourced material without consensus, that is edit warring, you have reverted twice (within 2 minutes each time!), please don't make me give you a 3RR warning.

It is completely irrelevant, but I'm personally very happy to consider JWs my brothers and sisters.

The thing is, this article is to be written from the neutral point of view, it's not here as a coatrack for people who want a one line answer to whether JWs are Christian or not. There is a simple answer: it depends who you are and what you're talking about.

I'll spend the next 30 minutes scanning the archives, before restoring my contribution to the article.

In that time, I'd appreciate you explaining how the BBC calling JWs Christian-based = JWs are Christian. And how the online Almanac for Kids is a source of any consequence regarding the issue. The awful third reference was best, but still an article citing another article citing yet another one, and essentially only a JW claim about themselves which is contested. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, therefore, anyone can undo your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! Now for my opinion on the matter:

The proposed first sentence is a bit sketchy; the only descriptive word relating to the Witnesses in the sentence is "followers", and all the sentence tells us is that they follow some Scriptures. The second sentence is good, but the concept is covered well in the second intro paragraph. The following clause, "Doctrinally, a synthesis of some sources might classify them as...", was wordy and unnecessary. It's obvious that they are restorationist, millenarian, and that they are a religions denomination. That they are Christian is qualified by "restorationist" and "millenarian". ...comments? ~BF izz 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a reply.

Actually, sourced text should not be removed, unless clearly off track, and the Witness self description could hardly be that.

When describing a group of people who are defined by their beliefs, the issue is describing their beliefs.

So the first sentence targets precisely the right issue. As indeed the PoV synthesis that caught my attention does also.

The first sentence doesn't tell us they follow just "some" scriptures, it specifies exactly which ones, and specifies precisely how the Witnesses describe those scriptures.

The cute thing about it is, the Witness description accords with precisely the description any other group would give also, so avoids being PoV.

I'm glad you agree that the second sentence serves well as a summary style topic sentence for the second paragraph, I hadn't thought of that.

The third sentence is wordy, because I'm deliberately weasling the PoV synthesis that follows rather than deleting it.

But, I agree, it is wordy, so I'll delete it as I restore the other two sentences, since no substantial content objection has been raised.

What do you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines, your proposed opening line is meaningless and wrong. You wrote: "Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation." As the source you cited says explicitly, they base their beliefs on both the old and new testaments. I doubt you will find any Watch Tower source that suggests they are followers of their translation of the Bible. They clearly, repeatedly, claim they are Christians; the other descriptors come from external sources. Their legal incorporation is not so important that it needs mentioning in the second sentence before explaining that they are a Christian denomination. You might like to add WP:BRD to your reading list and then consider that your views do not outweigh a consensus of a community of other editors. Show some courtesy and fully discuss your proposals before making such big changes. LTSally (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection to proposed first sentence: it's not good enough for a first sentence. If you want to stitch that sourced material into some other location in the article, I see no problem with that. But as a first sentence, it just doesn't cut it. Working the second sentence into the second paragraph seems fine to me, though I'd really prefer to see the intro trimmed down rather than bulked up. Your accusation of POV ignores my argument that the qualifier "restorationist" correctly indicates the potential for significant difference from mainstream and/or traditional Christianity. ...comments? ~BF izz 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I have taken a look at your proposed lead...

Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation. This first sentence doesn't say much, and what it does say is misleading. Like any translation, the NWT can be interpreted in various ways, so stating that the JWs follow the New Testament (should use the more common term, especially in the lead) is not neutral. Additionally, JWs believe (their interpretations of) the whole Bible, not only of the New Testament.

Legally, they are incorporated as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. This is inaccurate. Not all JWs are part of the Watch Tower Society corporation.

Doctrinally, a synthesis of some sources might classify them as... Wordy and weaselish, to avoid classifying JWs as Christian. Basically, there are two arguments against acknowledging that JWs are Christian, and neither are neutral. 1) Many Trinitarians don't believe non-Trinitarians can be Christian (however, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that non-Trinitarians are Christians[5]). 2) Some people make a value judgment that 'Christians' are 'good', and that JWs are 'bad', and conclude that JWs therefore cannot be Christian. Neither of these arguments has any bearing on a plain dictionary definition of 'Christian'[6][7][8][9][10][11][12].--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@LTSally Thanks for a reply and a genuine claim of a content error.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the New Testament. The New Testament claims the Old Testament must be followed in very many places. Are you aware of any groups (other than Marcion long gone) that claim the New Testament does not imply following the Old? I'd appreciate a source for that.

But lets add the Witnesses' own expression "Hebrew Scriptures" in also, how can we be against that reliably sourced datum? I agree that's an improvement, so I'll add it.

You seem not to have read the first sentence closely. It doesn't say JWs follow the NWT, it says they follow the Christian Greek Scriptures (which they can't do directly unless they know Greek) as available in the NWT.

I'm sure literally thousands of Witness sources are available, and dozens online, that make the point that the only reliable translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is the New World Translation. And good for them being so fussy! I'll source it with say three when I restore the text, improved by discussion here.

But now we get to the heart of the matter. If the Witnesses claim to be Christian it needs to be stated that they claim it, not asserted that they are. If others claim they are not—are there any reliable sources of that?—then NPoV requires that be noted also. But do we really want such pain in the lead when it's simply unnecessary to assert Christianity in the first place.

Who knows what a Christian is, certainly not Wikipedia, the word means different things in different contexts in common usage, and very specific things in theological usage.

If you insist on retaining the Witness claim to "Christianity" whatever that is, I'll consent of course, but I'll source say another three counter-claims. For the time being though, I'll leave existing text as it is, just flag it as PoV, which neutralises it.

Finally, since the text I'm contributing to the article is completely new, there can hardly be any consensus against it! LoL. Having modified, and indeed, improved the new contribution via discussion I'll now enter it. I suggest you reread BRD before reverting (or colluding) to make a 3rd revert. I'd appreciate a little more courtesy than being reverted without discussion after two minutes, twice!

Please work at finding a reliable non Witness reliable Christian theologian who describes the Witnesses as Christian if you really want to push that PoV. I happen to know that they do exist, but they're a bit fringy. My suspicion is we needn't open that issue in the lead, where it can't be handled at sufficient length to be managed peaceably. If you do want to take that line in the body of the article, I can help you source it and phrase it, so non-Witness Christians won't keep complaining, as, at the moment, they have every right to do. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

May I reiterate a third time that the claim in the lede is not merely that the religion is "Christian", but that it is "restorationist Christian" (with "millenarian" thrown in there as well). I think I said it best in my second comment here. ...comments? ~BF izz 09:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jeffro the NWT does include the OT, and as per my comment to Sally, I'll modify the first sentence accordingly.

You can't expect readers to make an ambiguous connection to draw some implied conclusion. Additionally, the statement remains entirely subjective regarding scriptures that are subject to interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I expect you could be right, that the legal structure of the organization is opaque to many believers. Nearly all denominations exist as legal entities, with official activities having insurance cover via those entities. However, in practice, all denominations have activities which members would consider part of membership, yet are not covered by an legal structure. This can be true in Presbyterianism, for example, if a church member runs a home group bible study. Street evangelism can also fall into the same category. So I'll not restore the second sentence.

Regarding the third sentence, I think it's best we don't delete what was already here. But since it is obviously PoV it must be neutralised i.e. policy demands we weasle it, as is standard in all articles.

It is difficult to imagine you're serious. Wikipedia is quite clear that weasel words should be removed, not added.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative compromise, however, I'll delete the BBC who actually wisely shy away from saying outright that Witnesses are Christian (making them an excellent source that popular, non-expert opinion exists contrary to the view that JWs are entitled to claim the "Christian" label), and the Kids Almanac, which is providing simplified categories, leaving only the JW claim to the (essentially meaninglessly oversimplified) label "Christian". I'll try to find two better sources to add to it, though I think the Witnesses themselves are shy about claiming it, since they don't want members thinking it's OK to join just any group that calls themselves "Christian". And, I might add, they are absolutely right to do so, from their perspective.

Go back to the dictionary definitions. Your battle against a simple definition of 'Christian' is absurd. If you believe there is actually anything contrary to those definitions about JW beliefs, present it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input people. We have some improvements already.

Sally's already used 2 of your reverts, I'm afraid I'll need to issue 3RR warnings to all three of you if any of you withold the modified text from wider comment than yourselves over the next 24 hours. I've decided I want to join the team at this article for two reasons: firstly to be a non Witness Christian supporter of their PoV, and secondly to correct the unhelpful attempt to publish a definition of Christianity which is unnecessary and provocative. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you do not have a proper understanding of the 3 revert rule. LTSally hasn't used some of other editors' '3 reverts'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Fizz, sorry I didn't interact more directly with you the first time. Let me make it clear that I hear what you're saying. You are saying that JWs are "Restorationist Christians" not simply "Christians". Who on earth could think that "National Socialists" (Nazis) implied "Socialists" a much more general term refering to quite a different kind of politics. I take your point.

However, much more normally in English (approximately 99% of the time, I would imagine), a "red car" implies a car. This is all the more true when adjectives are being used substantively, as they are in the case of "Christian". In fact, "Restorationist Christian" is short-hand for Restorationist, Christian person: a person who is both Restorationist and Christian, the intersection of two sets of people, or even a subset relationship according to some understandings--Restorationist being intended in the sense of Christian of the Restorationist type. What other kind of Restorationist are we talking about?

Anyway, here's the first of the genuinely reliable sources I've found for the point of view that Jehovah's Witnesses are classifiable under the broad label "Christian" without modification. He's an ex-Witness, and so knows the faith, yet disagrees with it sharply. He is still happy to use the label "Christian". Now there's a source that beats the Kids Alamanac, wouldn't you agree?

"No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world in such definite ways or on such specific dates as have Jehovah's Witnesses".

— M. James Penton, Apocalypse delayed: the story of Jehovah's Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 3.

I'll be back soon to make the changes we've discussed, and give them 24 hours to garner comment. Want to watch telly with my wife first. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how you may have interpreted what Mr Fizz said, the fact is that, by basic dictionary definitions (as cited earlier), JWs are Christians (which says nothing at all as to whether JWs, or Christians, or non-Christians, or any other group, are 'good' or 'bad', or 'right' or 'wrong', or any other irrelevant subjective value judgment). They are only considered to be not Christians when non-neutral subjective rules are substituted for or added to the basic definition. JWs are indeed restorationist Christians, and while it is true that restorationist does inherently identify them as Christian, they are also in the general unqualified sense, based plainly on their beliefs, Christian. Your allusion to Nazis (see also association fallacy) is irrelevant, because the definition of Christian stands on its own to define the religion in a general way (refer to dictionary definitions), and the identification of the religion is further qualified by restorationist.

You have not received agreement for the changes you have proposed. If you proceed to edit against consensus, your changes will likely be reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is clear opposition to many of your proposals. Rather than provoking edit wars and threatening to report multiple reverts, a more constructive approach would be to lay out your proposals here and they can be discussed first. LTSally (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sally: Rather than edit-warring by reverting without discussion twice, each after only two-minutes, you would be better advised to seek consensus regarding new sourced material. Please stop addressing editors and process rather than issues, and slow down. Opposition is normal and healthy and should be conducted on the talk page, not via reversion. Your objection regarding including the OT will be accommodated. So you have no outstanding objection.

@Jeffro: There is no consensus as yet, how can there be when only four people have been talking over a few hours? One dictionary definition is still only one point of view, and a very inadequate one when it comes to a complex word with many usages, including technical usages, as in the current case. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not restricted to giving single sentence definitions. Even the BBC, who were free to use an unqualified designation of the Witnesses as Christian (supported by some dictionaries perhaps) did not consider it prudent to use that unqualified designation—"christian-based" was their expression.

Since the objections that have been raised have all been met, and the remaining issue—whether Christian is a helpful or even meaningful designation to use in the lead has not been adequately discussed—I expect the new material to stand, while we continue to discuss the matter through to consensus.

I must say, I'm rather disappointed with the unwelcoming attitude. Reversions, threats and insults are pretty unfriendly.

Anyway, here's another source, that's no authority on theological belief, but at least beats the Kid's Almanac.

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian group that does not allow blood transfusion."

— Douglas R. Migden and G. Richard Braen, "The Jehovah's Witness Blood Refusal Card: Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations for Emergency Physicians", Academic Emergency Medicine 5 (2008): 815–824.

And an extremely good one, from another ex-Witness.

"About the same percentage among Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians as in any other church".

— Raymond Franz, In Search of Christian Freedom.

Alastair Haines (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually provided links to definitions from six different dictionaries. You are welcome to provide additional definitions as found in other sources, as technical as you like, but subjective definitions from 'anti-JW' sources will be considered on their merits. That said, the definition of Christian as found in dictionaries is actually not "complex" or "technical". The complexity comes in when additional subjective theological restrictions are imposed on the definition about what a Christian 'really' is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The objections have been met"? Met by what? You haven't validly rebutted the concerns I raised.

But the most curious part is that you to dispute that JWs are 'Christian', and yet provide sources that say they are Christian, though you provide them in statements that include negative insinuations about the group that are not relevant to the definition as Christian. Specifically, for the two you've given immediately above, the first gives a negative connotation about rejecting blood, and the second suggests a 'no true scotsman' fallacy about a 'percentage' of JWs being 'true' Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, you are taking a strangely combative approach to editing this article. You arrive out of nowehere and seem to believe that you can change a delicately worded intro that has been hammered out through much negotiation and discussion, and then demand that everyone else discuss that change, as poorly conceived as it is, on the talk page. Your claim that "Reversions, threats and insults are pretty unfriendly" misses the point that others who have worked long and hard on this article don't sit back while another editor comes along to impose his own rather odd and poorly argued beliefs on the article. You also seem to be having one-sided conversations with yourself in which you conclude that the objections of other editors to your proposal have been "met" and that editors including me "have no outstanding objection". You're wrong. My advice is stop, take a deep breath and lay out your suggestions here. Your proposed changes will clearly not last. Save everyone the trouble of unwinding your work and make your points here.

You claim the article expresses a point of view. You have yet to properly explain what that view is, apart from the suggestion that the article is wrongly claiming Witnesses, your "brothers" as you call them, are Christians ... a suggestion you later contradict with other sources. I really have no clear idea of what you're trying to achieve. LTSally (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And you won't gain any idea if all you do is revert, make accusations and get defensive.

There's something wrong if text is so fragile, basic sourced facts can't be admitted.

Providing sources is hardly combative, reverting without discussion within two minutes twice is.

Anyway, drop it, I've decided myself that nice as the idea was, defining JWs as followers of the Bible in the NWT does have two valid problems that I've seen myself: 1. it does not work prior to 1950 and 2. it does not acknowledge the place of other WT publications. Frankly, I think that's a bit technical and a bit disappointing, and it would still be a far better place to start than recondite words like "restorationist" and "millenial", which also seem arbitrary. "Hierarchical" (like Catholic and Anglican) or "non-Trinitarian" (like Christadelphians and Mormons) are far more standard classifications. "Restorationist" is arguably a PoV replacement for the equally PoV "Arian". "Millenial" isn't PoV, afaik, but it is arbitrary, why not "pacifist"?

What I saw in the archives looked like a good discussion, there were a good number of editors and at least one Witness. But it didn't look like there was close to a quorum from all interest groups, nor from all fields of expertise. This article looks like good work to me, but not perfect work. I really do hope you'll back down from presenting things as if it were, and that goes for the lead as well.

Anyway, the objections I've raised are simple and have not been answered, in the clamour to demonize and demean my contribution.

The BBC distance themselves from calling JWs "Christian", calling them "Christian-based".

That seems wise given three significant facts: 1. defining Christianity is not simple, 2. JWs themselves distance themselves from broad Christianity, and 3. the bulk of Christian denominations do not acknowledge JWs as broadly Christian either.

The BBC modify the Christian designation, Wikipedia currently is not modifying the designation at all, indeed, it is underlining it by using words that have meaning only in a Christian context.

"Published annually since 1996 and with more than 3 million copies sold to date, The World Almanac for Kids provides kids with the information they crave on thousands of subjects."

— "About Us", The World Almanac for Kids Online.

I still haven't heard the defense of this source as adequately dealing with doctrinal issues. Regardless, it expresses just one point of view, an exceedingly popular and even appropriate one at a low-resolution approach to classification.

Finally, the Watchtower frequently publish text that assumes Christian is the natural way for Witnesses to think of themselves. Providing a source quoting another source quoting the Watchtower is a good deal of redundancy. JWs consider themselves to be true Christians with very good reason and we can quote their materials to that effect. It is perfectly neutral and unchallenged, everyone knows and acknowledges this is the JW PoV.

But, conspicuous by its absence, is the PoV of broad Christendom. Since before the early 4th century, broad Christendom has understood Jesus to be divine. Before that, both Jewish and pagan Roman writers made note of people who worshipped the Nazarene or Chrestos. That PoV is still repeated in the doctrinal positions of tens of thousands of denominations, representing hundreds of millions of Christians. You will find it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, The 39 Articles, The Westminster Confession, and thousands of other documents. These PoVs do not assert that the divinity of Jesus is a belief exclusive to the denomination, but the teaching of the New Testament, and held in common with all Christians in any place or at any time. It is not a PoV polemical against Witnesses, though it has been applied to them in countless sources, and not just Witnesses, any group, including atheists, agnostics, Judaism and Islam, which have their good reasons for rejecting the alleged divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have Islamic friends, with whom I share spiritually. How much more I share with my Jewish friends, and how much more with Witnesses, who are closer still in values and aspirations than the others. And who knows? Maybe they are right and I am wrong, but our relationships are based on what we share, not on what divides us. (Does that answer your question Sally?)

That the name "Christian" is still applied even by ex-Witnesses to the members of the denomination, is an excellent source to establish how appropriate the name is in many ways. Not only do Witnesses consider themselves to be Christian, even those who fall out with them, still often apply the name both to themselves and to the people whose company they have left.

The word Christian and what constitutes a true Christian are relevant and sensitive in this article. It is flagrantly insensitive to sit in judgement on the issue and cast a vote either way. There are many ways to be neutral, choosing just one of them shouldn't be hard, which is just as well, because we have no choice.

The Kids Almanac, and dictionaries, are all that's needed to place Witnesses on a Christian navigation bar, but text permits greater subtlety and so brings greater responsibility. If Witnesses fall within the scope of Christianity, then Christian sources must be represented in documenting this particular community of faith, shouldn't they? All Christian points of view (including the majority PoV), from the neutral point of view.

Tell me again why the Kids Almanac trumps the Nicene Creed and the Catholic Catechism? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right. The term "Christian" is too point of view to be attributed to JWs. If the terms means, as you say, "different things in different contexts in common usage", do we also remove it from every other article that leads with text to the effect of "...is a Christian religion..."? After all just because other religions may attract more adherents does not make their point of view more valid? Jamie (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What great questions Jamie. Thank you.

Calling a group "Christian" expresses a PoV. (PoV is "yes" or "no" not "more" or "less", and every source is a PoV)

Example: "Pluto is a planet" is a PoV. The current official position is also a PoV: "Pluto is not a planet."

I'm not proposing to remove "Christian" from this article or any other, just to use it in the specific senses required by context.

Example: "It is not Christian to bear false witness against one's neighbour."

Example: "In the first crusade, the Christians aimed to capture Jerusalem."

Example: "The New Testament is the collection of Christian scriptures."

The three senses of "Christian" are different, but all well-defined.

But I take your point: "religions may attract more adherents".

It might be a good idea to have leads like the following:

The Roman Catholic Church is a religious denomination claiming its leadership preserves direct decent from the Apostle Peter himself.

Protestantism encompasses a collection of denominations historically decended from protests against the Roman Catholic Church.

The Greek Orthodox Church is the branch of the Eastern Orthodox traditions, that historically developed in Greece.

Undoubtedly those leads would be unsuitable to the actual articles, they are only intended to illustrate the possibility of definition without appeal to a contested category like "Christian".

However, in an article like World Religions, it would be odd not to gather all the denominations historically descended from the early Christian church under a simple heading like Christian.

So, yes, I think it would be most unfair to permit large denominations to claim the designation "Christian" while denying it to smaller ones. Wikipedia would lose neutrality by adopting the PoV of the largest or several large denominations.

And, yes, I guess that does mean avoiding using "Christian" in the leads of articles indexed by the Christianity template.

It is quite a different matter to apply the word "Christian" within the context of a broad system of classification (based on history), which is unambiguous in the case of a navigation tool, category or summary article, than it is to apply the word "Christian" in running prose, especially if definitional, and especially if there is any indication that doctrine (rather than merely history) might be involved.

By using terms like "restorationist" and "millenial", the current lead aims to define JWs doctrinally, rather than historically, organizationally, or in some other standard kind of approach to definition.

Doctrine will always be covered in the body of religious articles, there will always be critics, so that is the place for material that can only be neutral by providing statemens from each major PoV (without evaluating them).

Very likely there will be some genuine counterexamples to a preference for non-doctrinal definition. Those are not counterexamples to the general observation that Christian is a term that can be used with quite different senses in different contexts.

I hope I've answered the questions, Jamie. Please feel free to question the thinking some more. I've hardly got a whole policy worked out in my head. I'm just noting that the lead in this article violates WP:NPOV, explaining how it does so it can be addressed, and offering a range of different solutions so something can be done. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling a group "Christian" expresses a PoV? What rubbish. And can you please desist from your stream of consciousness comments? Be brief. Stick to the point. LTSally (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of "Christian" that don't include JWs

Possible definitions include:

The group of denominations that accept each others' baptisms and/or clergy ordinations, or those whose baptisms/ordinations are, for lack of a better word, "pope-approved"
The shared heritage/history of the Catholic church
The base theology that emerged from early Christian creeds (300-600 ad)

The second and third are soundly handled by using the term "restorationist Christian". By definition, restorationists do not identify with the heritage/history/theology of traditional Christianity, which they feel has gone astray. The first is the only sort of definition that could with any sort of legitimacy reject the current lede's first sentence. But I don't think any reliable source has ever defined Christianity as #1 does. Are there any possible definitions that I'm missing? ...comments? ~BF izz 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for interacting on this, let's take our time, because I don't know what the answer is, but we need one. Also, I like your brainstorming, those are three pretty good definitions. Let me brainstorm some more, I'm not seriously proposing these for this article or for Wikipedia, just brainstorming. Also, I'm not going to restrict definitions to those that exclude JWs, that would be the wrong place to start, imo. The following definitions are not mutually exclusive, and I'm sure they can all be sourced.

Definitions of Christian (this list is not exhaustive, numbered only to keep count)

people chosen by God for eternal life with him (wherever that might be)
people who have received God's Spirit (Trinity not necessarily implied)
people forgiven sin on account of Jesus' death
people who publicly declare their personal commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's own Christ
people who have been baptised (a) by denominational authorities (b) by authorities in related denominations (c) by anyone
people who acknowledge the New Testament as God's word (a) in whole (b) in part
people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by a denomination
people who actually live according to the New Testament (a) in sinless perfection (b) with sin covered by confession or repentance (c) without deliberate sin (d) at least involving bible study, church, prayer and evangelism
people who avoid committing the (a) "unforgivable sin" (b) any "mortal" sins
people who attend church (a) only one denomination (b) any authorized denomination (c) any church they like
people with Christian parents (including unborn children and infants, 1 Corinthians 7)
people who are citizens of "Christian" countries
people who indicate "Christian" on census forms, or have it registered on identity cards (as in Indonesia)
people who self-identify as "Christian", accepting whatever they mean by that term, even if they are not even clear themselves
people who have never apostasized (renounced "the Faith") (a) except under duress or persecution (b) under any circumstances
people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by the Oxford English Dictionary
people who have characteristics as described in literature about Christianity (a) denominational literature (b) Christian academic literature (c) secular academic literature
people who have any kind of association with any of the above definitions

I'm absolutely sure I've left out plenty of popular, simple definitions that can be found in reliable sources. There are, of course, dozens of others. Are there any that stand out to anyone else as being missing? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of where you are trying to take this. Are you saying that Witnesses are a Christian denomination, as stated in the intro of the article, or that they are not? The Wikipedia article on Christian defines such a person as one "who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who they believe is the Messiah (the Christ in Greek-derived terminology) prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and the Son of God." That definition is drawn from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the BBC (the latter which includes a trinitarian belief as part of the definition). The Witnesses conform to such a definition, with the obvious distinction of being non-trinitarian. They also themselves claim to be Christian. I don't see that a list of 18 dot-points, drawn from your own ruminations, is necessary to make a ruling on whether they are or not for the purposes of this article. LTSally (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair raised what he called three "three significant facts":

1. defining Christianity is not simple, - False. I previously provided links to several dictionaries that give non-theological definitions of Christianity. Those different sources all give a simple primary definition of Christian.

2. JWs themselves distance themselves from broad Christianity, - Irrelevant. JWs' application of special conditions for being 'true' Christians to exclude other religions from the term Christian is a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

3. the bulk of Christian denominations do not acknowledge JWs as broadly Christian either. - Irrelevant. Other Christian indidivuals/denominations' application of special conditions for being 'true' Christians to exclude JWs from the term Christian is also a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk)

Alastair also provided a non-exhaustive and largely subjective list of Christian definitions:

~~people chosen by God for eternal life with him (wherever that might be)~~ - POV - God's existence unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
~~people who have received God's Spirit (Trinity not necessarily implied)~~ - POV - Existence of God and Holy Spirit unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
~~people forgiven sin on account of Jesus' death~~ - POV - Event's of Jesus' death not historically proven, theological significance unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
people who publicly declare their personal commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's own Christ - Complies with basic definition of word. JWs satisfy this definition.
people who have been baptised (a) by denominational authorities (b) by authorities in related denominations (c) by anyone - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
people who acknowledge the New Testament as God's word (a) in whole (b) in part - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by a denomination - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
people who actually live according to the New Testament (a) in sinless perfection (b) with sin covered by confession or repentance (c) without deliberate sin (d) at least involving bible study, church, prayer and evangelism - extremely vague & subjective POV, but JW ideals satisfy the principles of this defintion.
~~people who avoid committing the (a) "unforgivable sin" (b) any "mortal" sins~~ - POV - Existence of "unforgivable sin" unproven, but JWs satisfy this definition.
people who attend church (a) only one denomination (b) any authorized denomination (c) any church they like - JWs satisfy this definition.
~~people with Christian parents (including unborn children and infants, 1 Corinthians 7)~~ - POV, but JWs satisfy this condition
~~people who are citizens of "Christian" countries~~ - Highly contestable POV.
~~people who indicate "Christian" on census forms, or have it registered on identity cards (as in Indonesia)~~ - not definitive, any individual of any religion may or may not state this correctly.
people who self-identify as "Christian", accepting whatever they mean by that term, even if they are not even clear themselves - Highly POV, though JW doctrine is very clear on the subject, and JWs satisfy this definition.
~~people who have never apostasized (renounced "the Faith") (a) except under duress or persecution (b) under any circumstances~~ - Highly POV.
people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by the Oxford English Dictionary - ~~No access to definition.~~ Definition supplied by Alastair. Vague, but JWs satisfy this condition. (However, Alastair only provided a secondary definition. If the 7 other dictionaries I have considered are anything to go by, the primary definition is likely much more general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
people who have characteristics as described in literature about Christianity (a) denominational literature (b) Christian academic literature (c) secular academic literature - Broad, vague POV. JWs satisfy aspects of this definition.
~~people who have any kind of association with any of the above definitions~~ - so vague as to be meaningless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! Jeffro, since you bring it up. You are the best example of a proponent of the True Scotsman I've encountered at Wikipedia.

Jeffro: All sources agree that the Tritinity is irrelevant to the definition of Christianity.

Alastair: But 30,000 denominations, and the JWs themselves think the Trinity (or its denial) are absolutely relevant

Jeffro: But no true (read neutral) source thinks the Trinity is relevant to the definition of Christianity.

Excuse me, I have to clean my monitor. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your attribution of the above statements is intellectually dishonest. I never stated that all sources discount the Trinity as relevant to the definition of Christian. I stated, correctly, that non-theological sources that give a general definition of Christian, as you will find in dictionaries, do not indicate any relevance to the Trinity. And feel free to present the official statements of denominations (rather than individual members) that state that JWs are not Christian and their reasons for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, in case you are genuinely confused rather than patently dishonest, I have not seen any secular dictionary that states or implies that the Trinity is relevant to the definition of Christian. But feel free to present some.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you are still confused, your own statement in your imaginary conversation above is irrelevant here, because what those people think is relevant is inherently their own point of view, which Wikipedia specifically avoids. (Though it is highly unlikely that you have accurately surveyed the official views of 30,000 denominations regarding their attitude regarding JWs' status as Christians.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up! Laugh! Graciously concede! Otherwise you just look like your wriggling. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concede to what? You've presented very little in the way of specifics. But thanks for the one sourced definition you did supply, which does not preclude JWs. I have invited you to indicate any sources for definitions that endorse your claim that Christian excludes JWs, but you have presented none. Nor have you supplied any source for your claim that 30,000 denominations (officially) exclude JWs from their definition of Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Back. Jeffro, how can I respond to your assertion that "Defining Christianity is simple: lots of dictionaries do it"?

Allow me to quote an example of your understanding of the Scotsman fallacy from the Oxford, no less:

Christian B substantive: "2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety." [Emphasis added.]

Of course, there's no fallacy, and also, of course, the Oxford doesn't claim to know just which particular people or groups would fit the definition, since that depends on whatever can be understood by the "spirit", "precepts" and "example" of Christ—a matter of New Testament interpretation regarding which the Oxford is well aware it is not expert.

Please don't assert I'm wrong on your own authority Jeffro. I know a thing or two. You paint yourself into a corner. Question the issue, don't try to combat someone more familiar with the sources than yourself. This is a complex question with issues I've not even started to consider. I'd like friendly company as we take the adventure of working it through together. Gathering sources for others who can follow in our footsteps, once we've summarised it all nicely.

I've offered only 17 of many verifiable definitions of Christianity. You are insisting that precisely one of those can ever apply, in any context at Wikipedia. Sorry Jeffro, that got to be bollocks. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the definitions you supplied exclude JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, I've got serious work to do elsewhere. I suggest you take a 24 hour break before posting here again. Come back when you're relaxed and happy to laugh at yourself. You assert the falsity of my statement "Defining Christianity is not simple". That's a universal, in this context: "in any Wikipedia article the definition of Christianity is simple". I provide 18 verifiable definitions of Christianity, providing many counterexamples. In true Scotsman fallacy style, you not only dismiss one counterexample, but do it repeatedly with a long list! To put icing on the cake, you then accuse me of intellectual dishonesty on the grounds that my first example didn't show your style of argument. Actually, my first example was absolutely valid. But, the funny thing is, you provide an even clearer (and repeated) example of it in the very post in which you deny being guilty of the fallacy.

Jeffro stop! Stop trying to win! Stop trying to imply a complex question is simple and settled. It is neither of those things. And it is obviously neither of those things. You're only trying to trick others into thinking things are settled, so you can keep your precious PoV in the article. Stop it!

If you're willing to take an idea on board. It's simple: from Wikipedia's point of view no source is neutral. How could we ever verify neutrality? Because the source claims to be neutral? Certainly not! Because an editor deems a source neutral? Obviously not. Because a bunch of editors vote that a source is neutral? No way!

When people claim a source is neutral, they are often saying more about themselves than the source. They simply share the PoV of the source. Jeffro doesn't know or care about Christian doctrine, the Oxford doesn't know or care about Christian doctrine. Case closed ... for Jeffro.

Come on Jeffro, these are plain basics of Wikipedia! Come back tomorrow and pretend you know nothing, and I'll do the same. The basis for all progress at Wikipedia is people working together on the basis of assumed ignorance, seeking to resolve questions (rather than conflicts) by appeal to reliable (not neutral) sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll post when I have time, which at the moment is now.

Your long list of definitions only demonstrates that none of those definitions precludes JWs, but by all means feel free to indicate any that you think do. And please note that I did not contend that your definitions were wrong (though some pre-suppose the existence of entities whose existence is unestablished).

On non-denominational websites such as Religious Tolerance.org, BeliefNet, BBC Adherents.com etc, JW is invariably included within the category of 'Christian'. (The Adherents citation also indicates that both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia include Jehovah's Witnesses within the term Christian.)

When you come back tomorrow, perhaps you will supply the elusive alternative definitions of Christian that support your claim that the term excludes JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here, thanks to Jamie's excellent questions, and I'll stay a bit thanks to your decent post.

The first definition—chosen by God—might exclude the JWs, alternatively it might exclude everyone else.

Wikipedia is written from the scientific point of view, i.e. the position of ignorance.

Applied to God, that position is known as agnosticism (as I'm sure you're aware): God might exist, or he might not exist.

There is no consensus in reliable sources on that particular datum, and indeed none is likely, because it is rather hard to perform experiments that would exclude the possibility of there being a God.

But that's just Wiki basics, so let's return to the substantial issue.

We have perhaps the most primary definition of Christian: God's chosen.

But how can we know whom God has chosen? It seems impossible.

Oddly, however, it is not hard in the case of Judaism.

The criterion, in the Old Testament, for God's choice (rather simplified) is descent from Abraham.

Indeed, that very idea is also in the New Testament, and the metaphor of gentile Christians being decended by faith from Abraham is used (however that is supposed to work).

In fact, just how faith (whatever it means) and God's choice work, is discussed at length in the New Testament.

It is hardly surprising that it is also much discussed by Christians (in the sense of "believers in the New Testament").

These Christians (in the sense I've just mentioned) are concerned to learn, from what they consider to be a reliable source, just what it means to be a Christian (in the sense of God's choice) and what it means to be a Christian (in the sense of how to live).

(Please forgive me labouring the point that there are many senses of the word Christian.)

Now, all this worrying about what the Bible says makes no sense at all if you don't believe in God, unless perhaps you are a Christian (in the sense of having Christian parents or living in a "Christian country").

In that case, you might be interested in just precisely what point of view the Bible has.

But, finding that some parts of the Bible might possibly be taken in different ways, you decide to see what reliable sources might say about which reading or readings might be preferable.

Now, you might want reliable sources for the point of view that the Bible is incoherent, in which case you'd not consult any Christian (which sense?) scholars. Alternatively, you might want affirmation of some kind of hope or faith you feel, and consult tracts and sermons. Or, you might be pretty scientific, wanting to compare different scholastic Christian (which sense?) points of view with different scholastic non-Christian (which sense?) points of view, wanting to judge their merits and demerits for yourself.

Wikipedia serves the interests of all these readers, documenting all the points of view.

It doesn't tell them "there is no God", and the only meaningful sense of Christian is classification according to historical association.

Or rather, it does in this article. Is that because it's the point of view of half-a-dozen editors willing to fight to insist on it? Please tell me it's not. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apt demonstration of why I struck out the POV definitions that pre-suppose the existence of supernatural deities. As you correctly point out, we aren't to presume in the article whether those entities do or do not exist, so the definition you've considered here is not particularly important for a secular article. Since god has 'decided' to remain silent on the matter, those definitions that presuppose supernatural entities are of no benefit to establishing whether or not JWs are Christian. 'God's chosen' ultimately fails as any reliable definition of Christian because 1) it has no relevance to the base word, 'Christ', and 2) it is impossible to verify. However, it is a mistake to assume that a person doesn't necessarily understand biblical subject matter in the absence of belief in god (whether that be me, or other readers).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is obviously not secular, it is neutral.

In Christian doctrine God is presupposed.

So, if doctrinal definitions are being offered, as they must be, if an article purports to document a Christian group, God becomes part of the picture.

In Christian doctrine God is not silent.

So what God may, or may not, have said about things, is frequently a matter on which it is worth expressing a PoV.

In JW doctrine, who, pray tell, chooses the 144,000?

On what basis have millions accepted this doctrine?

The definition of "awful" need have no reference to the base word "awe" and does not preclude me saying, for example, "your arguments are awful." Alastair Haines (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

At last I've got it! Sorry it's taken so long. Finally, I can see the bind you're in, Jeffro.

Jeffro wants a definition of Christian that doesn't involve God.

Stated that simply and accurately it sounds like you've got no hope whatsoever.

Two unfortunate co-incidences have tripped you up, though.

Firstly, you think you have found such a definition, not just one, but two: dictionaries, and classifications of religions.

Secondly, some groups use the name Christian, but don't think the Christ is God.

Bingo! A recipe for disaster.

Misunderstanding the difference between neutral and secular makes things even worse, but I've explained that most clearly and briefly in a reply below to LTSally who has the same misunderstanding.

I don't have time now, but I think I can help you Jeffro. "Christian" always connotes reference to God. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Alastair, can you succinctly explain which definition(s) of "Christian", if any, exclude JWs, and what reliable source(s), if any, asserts such a definition for the word? Throwing up the smokescreen that "'Christian' is hard to define" is not a good excuse for changing the lede's first sentence. I specifically started this section with the title "Definitions of 'Christian' that do not include JWs", but you went and added a large bundle of definitions that don't meet this criteria. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian: "one who worships Christ as God".

Branch Davidian doctrine was derived from the same source as other groups that can be classified as "Christian".

Therefore, Branch Davidians can be classified as Christian.

Additionally believing that David Koresh was the Messiah, makes it problematic to say their doctrine really fits properly with the definition of Christian as one who "believes or professes the teaching of the Christ and his apostles".

So, beyond the trivia of classification, can Wikipedia confidently assert that Branch Davidians were Christian? Alastair Haines (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Haynes, you confuse me. Regardless of what definition of Christian is correct. By stating that the word Christian means you accept Christ is God is POV to the groups that believe that Christ is God. They may be a majority but nevertheless the stance is POV, biased towards the majority.

There is a conflict here. You are happy accepting the doctrinal stance of a majority, I.e. Christ is God. Essentially a consensus. But you are not happy with group consensus deciding Wikipedia article content? Does that not seem somewhat conflicting to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieStapleton (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Haines, or Sir, please, unless you are citing my published work, Mr Stapleton, Sir. But you may call me Alastair if you wish.

I completely agree with you. A doctrinal assertion is only one PoV, and if it is contested, other PsoV must be documented.

A passing reader observed that the first sentence made a doctrinal assertion, "JWs are Christian".

So, apparantly Stapleton, Haines and IP address all agree, either another PoV is required, or we need to remove the doctrinal statement from the lead. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, the one thing which you have stated excludes JWs from being Christian (i.e. "don't think the Christ is God") is disqualified by the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of Unitarians as Christian, because the premise of your argument is based on a definition that does not have consensus among Christians or even among Trinitarians. That said, you are yet to provide any suitable definition of Christian that precludes JWs. It appears that your objection to the classification is based on a biased value judgment about Christians, JWs, or both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the classification of the organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" as Christian-based. Please show me where I made such an objection.

In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia, clearly distinguishes doctrine from organization. The very point I've been making all along.

The lead makes a claim about doctrine, which is the JW claim regarding doctrine. The lead currently implies: Catholics are not Christian. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All of these definitions are completely irrelevant. Provide a reliable source written by an objective observer (i.e. not writing form the point of view of a particular denomination) and expert in the histpry or sociology of religion that defines JW as something other than christian - then we can discuss whether that view is sufficiently notable to be incluided in the lead. This is all Original Research and Synthesis. When reliable sources say that they are Christian it needs better sources to include the opposite viewpoint - and that still would only mean including BOTH viewpoints appropriately weighted against eachother.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all we're talking about here Maunus: either avoiding doctrine or expressing all doctrinal views (which are only twofold).

I think what you're overlooking is that "religious" opinions of Christians are, in theory (and in the Oxford Dictionary's definition), based on "the teaching of Christ and his apostles". In actual fact, most Christian groups add many more beliefs: on church government, on contemporary social issues, etc. Replacing the Oxford's "Christ" with a more scientific and specific "Jesus of Nazareth", we get genuine scientific questions: are the New Testament documents accurately interpreted, translated and transmitted. Are quotes of Jesus' words in the gospels reliable? Which gospels borrowed from other gospels, have any been lost?

Then there are practical questions: under what circumstances did Jesus permit divorce? Some denominations are very concerned about food laws and other cermonial details of the New Testament.

Now, what Maunus might expect to hear from Christians (perhaps) is a load of moral rules citing God as authority, and rules regarding belief among them. That's just a point of view on Christianity that might reflect middle American experience and incompetant televangelists. It does not, however, lead to accurate predictions regarding the intensions of an academic theologian living in a British convict colony, where Christianity is widely unknown. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, people that write about religion tend to be religious, and therefore quickly lose their "objectivity". If there is significant dispute about whether or not JWs are Christian, then perhaps we should include a section in the article documenting said disputes (very carefully avoiding OR). ...comments? ~BF izz 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your assumption of bad faith regarding academics addressing religious subjects, but since it happens to be my day job to read them, I can assure you that peer review in many of the best journals includes people of all traditions and even many atheists. Do sociology academics, or those working in economics, have no political opinions?

You're a thoughtful kind of chap to offer room for coverage of doctrinal dispute within the body of the article, and I think you're absolutely correct. Some coverage is required, but only a little. I believe there are only two main objections I've heard mooted regarding JW doctrine: subtracting deity from Jesus, and adding sources of revelation beyond the Bible. I think Wiki has selected the right option: to cover objections to the New World Translation in its own article. A similar approach would see detailed discussion of most doctrinal objections to the JWs at other articles.

The reliability of theological journals need not be much of an issue here, though, because apart from summary style notes and links to the issues of Jesus deity and Sola Scriptura there should be few doctrinal points of view expressed in the article, except those of the JWs, few are significant enough outside the JWs to be notable. Greek Orthodox theologians have little to say about JW views regarding blood transfusion, for example. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoid controversy in the lead

I notice that all three editors above belong to the Jehovah's Witness Wikiproject. I can only wonder whether they consider me a brother or not, I guess time will tell. But to business.

I think it a little unwise to apply unnecessary adjectives, both regarding the denomination, and regarding the New World Translation. If adjectives are needed, we can use them in the body of the article, where there is room to express the major schools of thought both pro and con.

I've added a source, from a published PhD.

"The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern or scholarly."

— Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983), p. 93.

I'm not game to write it in yet, but I will do so if necessary. My recommendation is that we leave well alone, and let the New World Translation article do most of the work of documenting the scholastic commentary on the NWT. The lead here needs no evaluations of the NWT. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A few things.

Jeffro, LTSally, and I all self-identify as non-JWs (or in LTSally's case, an ex-JW). Membership in the wikiproject does not imply membership in the religion.
The adjectives in the lede first sentence are absolutely necessary.
The adjectives in the lede regarding the NWT are appropriate and illustrative.
The quoted source would work fine in the criticism section, but what's it doing in the lede?

We're kind of at the "Discuss" part of BRD, so I for one would appreciate if you would break your arguments down very clearly. Start by quoting a currently standing chunk of the article, then explain what you think is wrong with it, and optionally propose a solution. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. State clearly and specifically your objections and proposals. And please be concise in your comments. Rambling observations about friendship with other faiths reduce the likelihood of other editors reading your comment and absorbing your viewpoints. LTSally (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You guys really like to communicate that you feel in charge don't you?

So far, instead of providing good reasons for glaring issues in a couple of places in the lead, you simply assert: "a few of us have already got it all worked out", and direct criticism at the editor who is pointing out the issues.

I'd say we're still at the ownership and obstruction stage. But you have your opinion, I have mine.

The first sentence would read much better as: JWs are an exclusive, pacifist and evangelistic denomination arising from the Christian tradition.

"Restorationist" is a PoV term claiming Arianism is an authentic branch of Christianity, although it denies Jesus is God.

Good for Arians! They might well be authentic Christianity. But the claim is still only one PoV.

"Millenial" is an arbitrary doctrinal category. The Millenium is inferred, by some, from Revelation 20. JW doctrines interact with the Bible much more comprehensively than that, including many distinctive teachings which have adjectives to describe them.

I'm proposing "pacifist" because it's one of the most famous (and positive) things about the JWs (see Pacifism#Jehovah's_Witnesses). It's also an ordinary English word, as is "exclusive". I'm placing "exclusive" first, because that is more general, less arbitrary and provides scope to explain the relationship between JWs and Christian tradition.

Evangelism is another well-known distinctive of the JWs. It also connects with the "Christian tradition".

Instead of blinding people with science, start with what they know. Instead of provoking controversy with a PoV claim, state what can't be denied. It is in the sense of broad Christian tradition that JWs can be called Christian. As far as doctrine goes, either JWs are the only Christians (JW PoV) or they are not in fact Christians (PoV of almost all other denominations).

Other issues that have still not been addressed:

the BBC source does not assert that JWs are Christian
the reliability and suitability of the Kid's World Almanac have not been explained
the third source for JWs as Christian is a JW source, one PoV deserves another
the NWT is "literal" and "conservative" according to one scholar "biased" and "dishonest" according to another, the first scholar's PoV cannot be admitted without the second's also

You got problems here dudes, get to work! Alastair Haines (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Restorationist (in the context used) isn't a POV term, it is a term that describes groups of people who have a particular POV, and the term is quite important with regard to JWs.

I don't have any specific problem with simplifying the lead by leaving out Millenial, provided that it is still dealt with in the article. The word wikt:exclusive is bit vague, because the term may imply either to the exclusion of others in the genereal sense, or of superior quality.

It is generally better to avoid mixing adjectives that describe the religion (restorationist, etc) with those that describe its attitudes (pacifist, exclusive) in the same sentence.

Because "Jehovah's Witnesses" as an organization functions as a proper noun in the singular (like the trademarks 'Corn Flakes' or 'X-Men'), it is proper grammar to state that "Jehovah's Witnesses is a ... denomination".

Your preferred wording of "denomination arising from the Christian tradition" is circumlocutory. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and by all secular definitions I've seen, JWs are Christian (and you are most welcome to present secular definitions that suggest otherwise, which until now you have not done). Because Wikipedia is not censored, we don't need to avoid acknowledging that JWs are Christian on the basis that people of other religions might disagree (though the official positions of those religions is also largely unclear/unstated). By all means feel free to add better references. (You have already cited some you believe to be better for acknowledging JWs as Christian.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On just point, they are not pacifist. William Whalen, in Armageddon Around the Corner notes that point; Hoekema in The Four Major Cults identifies them as adopting a stance of political neutrality rather than pacifism. In the Watchtower of August 15, 1964 they specifically reject the suggestion they are pacifists. LTSally (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sally. Three excellent sources. Witnesses deny it themselves (that would be enough for me). Hoekma provides a more precise description, that's helpful for me. I really appreciate this. There's a lot I don't know about the Witnesses, and I'm hungry for what sources can tell me. Experts, who know the sources, like yourself, Sally, give me just what I'm looking for.

I guess it's back to you to come up with a proposal for how to remove the PoV from the lead. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 50 words or less, what POV precisely? And there is no need to provide sources for the claim that they are not pacificists, since the term is not mentioned in the article. It was you who proposed its use. LTSally (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You do need a source Sally, I'm not your disciple. Both your opinion and mine are irrelevant. Only sources matter. Not just for what goes into articles, but for what stays out.

I've given short explanations of the PoV, long ones, sourced ones, to you and now four other people.

Are you actually listening? I can't see how repeating myself will help.

In 100 words or less, please summarise my objections to the current lead. Alastair Haines (talk)

Thanks for your comments Jeffro. It's nice to hear you take my point about the arbitrary nature of the "millenial" designation, it's no big deal, though. Take it or leave it is fine by me too.

I take it you are American, because it's only in US English that speakers feel collective nouns should be singular. So you're wrong on grammar, but as JW history started in the US, it is US usage that should be adopted per Wiki MoS.

There are Exclusive Brethren and Exclusive Baptists, and a number of other denominations where "exclusive" has the sense applicable to the JWs. It is unquestionably easier to understand than Restorationist, which apart from being PoV, is also vague: what is being Restored? But I'm not set on any of the words I've proposed, the main thing is removing the PoV, just how we do it is only secondary.

Circumlocution is one methodology frequently recommended in style guides for avoid commitment to a PoV. Again, I don't care how it's done, but the PoV must go, and it's over to you to provide some alternatives. There are many circumlocutoray options, so that might help you come up with something.

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia in the sense that it is not committed to any particular religious point of view, and that includes atheism. Instead it is eclectic, all points of view without editorial preference. "Jeffro prefers secular sources" is merely making explicit the PoV implicit in the current lead, it is not an argument in defense of it, nor is it any help to correcting it.

But the secular sources argument is even more impotent in the case of doctrinal issues, for two reasons. Firstly, secular sources do not state that JWs are "Christian" in any absolute sense, they merely classify JWs with other denominations that have a common ancestry based on the New Testament. I have already made clear that I support classifying JWs as Christian, they belong on the Christianity nav bar, and that bar belongs in this article.

However, the second reason the secular source argument is impotent is because secular sources, unless explicitly doing so, cannot be presumed to be addressing matters of Christian doctrine, it is not a matter they claim to be expert in, nor to have any claim to expressing an opinion on, mostly because they have no stake in the issues. They are not invited to adjudicate, because they are not competent to do so. Since secular sources claim no authority in speaking on Christian doctrine, and since they are not invited by the involved parties, it is inappropriate for us to co-opt secular sources to play a role they do not themselves pretend to play.

That Wikipedia is uncensored is a good point. The article absolutely must take note that the JWs are Christian (in the doctrinal sense) and other denominations are not, according to the JW PoV. It must also take note that the doctrinal difference is reciprocated, according to the PoV of other denominations. The censorship here is against denominational views other than the JWs.

So, I guess our question is nicely clear. Should we fix the PoV problem by:

including the mutual anathamatization in the first sentence of the lead (i.e. adding the view of the 30,000 censored denominations); OR
by circumlocution, or other standard methods, defer the undisputed fact of mutual anathamatization to the body (i.e. follow the example of the BBC and avoid declaring the JWs as "Christian" in the doctrinal sense.

Surely it's got to be the second option doesn't it? We can't define groups by mutual anathamatization, or, fair's fair as Jamie pointed out, mutual anthamatization would end up in the definition of every Christian group. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a secular encyclopedia. The casual reader needs to be informed in a sentence or two what Jehovah's Witnesses is. Answer: it's a church, a denomination of Christianity with its own distinctive beliefs and doctrines. The definition you seek is for another encyclopedia entirely, one that deals only with religious minutiae. LTSally (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything that claims knowledge is a point of view.

The neutral point of view never claims knowledge of anything except other points of view.

Wikipedia is written from the neutral point of view, not the secular point of view.

The secular point of view is a point of view, because it claims knowledge, or there'd be no point sourcing it.

It is not neutral, it is a point of view.

Regarding the designation "Christian", the secular usage is one of classification, not doctrinal definition.

Christian doctrinal designations like "millenial", "premillenial", "postmillenial" and "amillenial" can only be established on the basis of Christian sources.

Those are non-negotiable basics. Arguments based on contradicting them all fail. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Another rambling 'reply' (though not really replying to anything anyone really asked). As with many of your assumptions, and though it is really none of your business, you are wrong about your guess that I am American. And you are wrong about the grammar, because we are talking about a proper noun (being the name of an organization), not a collective noun (referring to a bunch of people).

Your reference to 'Exclusive Brethren' is irrelevant, because 'Exclusive' is part of the name of the group, irrespective of opinions of whether they are actually 'exclusive'. 'Restorationist' is also a specific term with a well-defined meaning—the opinion of whether Restorationist groups are actually a "restoration" of 'first-century Christianity' has no real bearing on the suitability of the term itself.

You have repeatedly ignored requests for any definition of Christianity that, in any measurable way, excludes JWs, and the closest you've come is hypothetical rambling about who a deity might have 'chosen'; however, your red herring about atheism is also irrelevant, because the secular definitions of Christian, as found in dictionaries, are not incompatible with theism. And if as you claim, there simply aren't any specific secular sources, then we fall back on basic secular definitions, which brings us back to you explaining in what manner JWs do not comply with basic secular definitions of Christian, or indeed with the definitions you provided.

As far as presentation of facts about JWs, it is a fact they are a Christian group, because such is plainly obvious from their teachings, and supported by their inclusion as Christian by third parties—including the Catholic Encyclopedia's inclusion of Unitarians as Christian—and the distinct lack of any remark on just how they are not Christian.

Further, the JW POV that other religions aren't Christian, is not a fact, just as the theological opinions of members of other religions about JWs are also not facts (and their theological opinion of other religions is appropriately covered elsewhere in the article). You again state that '30,000 denominations' all have the view that JWs are not Christian, but this too is your unsourced opinion.

So, given that you're wrong on quite a many points, at least do this:

State which definition(s) of Christian that you believe JWs do not satisfy. (Unverifiable opinions such as 'chosen by God' are not suitable, because none are verifiable by such criteria.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK your use of the word "rambling" and your continued committment to falsified assumptions shows you still haven't understood.

It's odd to hear someone being confidently critical of logic they admit they can't follow, but I'll leave you to shoot yourself in the foot on that one. I can concede at least one more triviality to you, that it is true I find "Jehovah's Witnesses is" such a very awkward expression, grammatically correct as indeed it is, that I instinctively read it the wrong way. "The Jehovah's Witnesses denomination is ..." or some other expedient would avoid this reader surprise.

I've answered all objections clearly (as can be seen above), I'm right about the awkwardness of "is", right about "exclusive" as being applicable to denominations (even within their name as was sourced), and yet my simple challenges continue to be ignored: BBC "Christian-based", Kids Almanac, JW source for JW designation (neutral?), "biased" and "dishonest" translation.

It's rather obvious that answers are not being offered because they can't be. Instead, insulting red-herrings are posted.

Still, I'll plow on. You rightly understand that Restorationist is questionable, that's a helpful concession. But I do take your point, that if it's a sufficiently standard term for denoting a classification rather than asserting a historical affiliation, that would render it acceptable. As I keep pointing out classification is the key. Nice to see things are getting clearer.

Instead of answering my simple objections, you continue to assert I hold positions I've never put forward. Of course dictionary definitions of Christianity are consistent with theism! But not much more! That's the whole point! The dictionary attempts to be comprehensive in describing usage, which is very broad. The dictionary does not exclude more specific definitions of Christian, including say the JW claim about true Christianity being exclusive to their own denomination, or a similar claim by Roman Catholicism (salus extra ecclesiam non est)—yet another sourced PoV, this time with 17 centuries of currency, and one of many which is offered outside the JWs as excluding them from being inside doctrinally defined Christianity. (Not my own opinion, just an extremely well known PoV.)

Since it is clear that I'm right on all these things and that you are wrong (you are even contradicted by text in the body of the current article). I suggest you give up the insults and side-tracks and answer the challenges I've posted again and again. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not right. And it doesn't matter whether you are right. It matters what sources say. As is now the only reliable, academically published sources (Beckford and Holden both sociologists) support the current version of the lead. To challenge any of it you will have to provide equally reliable sources. Opinions of theologians from other christian branches are not to be considered reliable in this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said it matters that I'm right?

But since I am, what are we going to do?

The lead currently expresses a point of view regarding Christian doctrine: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a ... Christian denomination."

Christian B. sb. 1. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

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

OED

No problem so far, well defined PoV and Wiki is all about documenting every PoV we possibly can.

But we have to verify them of course.

Any claims regarding Christian doctrine need reliable sources of Christian doctrine for verification.

We need to verify JWs "believe or profess" the "system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles."

Unless Beckford and Holden have theological qualifications, they're simply not reliable sources on the teaching of Christ and his apostles.

Still no problem, though, because we do have one reliable source for the PoV: a JW source.

But there is something missing ... other points of view!

What we want is opinions of theologians specialising in Christianity.

(They're not all Christians, by the way, not that it's relevant.)

I want to finish copyediting a Hinduism article, so we can nominate it for FA.

How long do you think you would need, Manus, to confirm no significant portion of theologians of Christianity deny that JWs teach the "doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles."

For example, that the apostles did not teach that Jesus is God.

I'll save you some time. Here's but one.

"The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the essential doctrines of historic, orthodox Christianity."

— Don H. Howell, "God-Christ interchange in Paul", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (1993): 467–479.

So, in case anyone got lost along the way there. To state that a person or group is Christian means (according to the Oxford) one who believes or professes doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles. Howell (and rather a large contingent of scholars, not all Christian) express the point of view that Christ and his apostles taught the "full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ". On the other hand, JW scholars, express the point of view that Christ and his apostles taught no such thing.

If the JWs are right about what Christ and his apostles taught then they are Christian and others are not, and vice versa.

As Howell said, and JWs will agree, "the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ" is an "essential doctrine" to affirm or deny. Essential means not optional to professing the religion of Christ, i.e. without it one is not, in the Oxford's terms, a Christian.

My recommendation: kill the word "millenial" in the first sentence so "Restorationist Christian" reads as a technical categorisation of affiliation and history, which historians and sociologists can talk about, rather than a doctrinal expression which puts us at the mercy of theologians.

Alastair Haines (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, your thread is headed "Avoid controversy in the lead." It may be early days, but it seems that you are the only person who takes issue with the current wording. You are convinced you are right, but for all your windbaggery, you have yet to attract any support. Just a thought before you launch into your next sprawling commentary. LTSally (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Windbag" eh! How does that explain your point of view on the article?

Thanks for the invitation to attract support, I'll widen discussion shortly, if necessary. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If your recommendation is to use "Restorationist Christian" as a technical categorization, then we could simply swap the position of "restorationist" and "millenarian" to read "millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination". Or the categorization might be "Christian restorationist", and it might be OK to say "millenarian Christian restorationist". But the millenarian element of the Witnesses is a big deal, and deserves its position in the first sentence. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Fizz, great idea. I'd certainly be able to join you in defending the phrasing "milleniarian Restorationist Christian denomination". I'm struggling to verify the usage "Restorationist Christian", though. I did find it applied to the International Churches of Christ. Any help you can give in pointing me to other sources would be greatly appreciated. I'll check the current reference at my own college library. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objections to "millenarian Restorationist Christian denomination". ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of this was discussed in September 2009 at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 46#Restorationism / Millenarianism.
I'd written there:

Jehovah's Witnesses have described themselves and early Christians as "Millenarians". The term is hardly a pejorative! [... See] "Christians and the Millennial Hope", The Watchtower, April 15, 1981, pages 13-14, "Roman Catholic Church and...Protestant religions never mention the millennial hope to churchgoers. They speak disdainfully of that hope as “millennialism,” and of those who share it as “millenarians.” But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not ashamed of this belief ..there is cumulative evidence that the early Christians were “millenarians,” insofar as that name was applied to those who were hoping for the 1,000-year reign of Christ the Messiah. --AuthorityTam (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tam! :)) Good for you! I'll check out that archive, and especially anything you have posted.

I'm glad "millenarian" is not pejorative. My personal experiences of JWs have been too rare and all positive. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A further thought regarding your logic, Alastair. You've identified one of many "teachings of Christ and his apostles" (the full deity of Jesus). Its fairly safe to say that JWs follow and propogate many other (undisputed) teachings of Christ and his apostles. The definition you point out does not say all teachings, it just vaguely says "the system of doctrines and precepts". Admittedly, many find the trinity doctrine to be a big deal, but its still only one of many doctrines and precepts, and excluding JWs from Christianity based on that one doctrine certainly does sound like a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Fizz, you are a sharp mind! I can find little to disagree with in anything you post. Indeed, the possibility of the very weakness you mention did occur to me. So, I selected, not the Trinity, but the divinity of Jesus as a doctrine, and for several reasons. What the Oxford cannot say, theologians do say. That is, not all "doctrines and precepts" are alike within Christianity. So a 90% hit rate on a checklist may, or may not, indicate "belief in the teachings of Christ".

For those versed in the Bible, Romans 14 and other passages include precepts regarding "disputable matters", whereas in Galations we hear that "some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (NIV).

I doubt we'd find any Biblical scholar who'd deny that: "disputable matters" are understood not to divide "believers in the teachings of the apostles and gospel of Christ"; however "perverting the gospel of Christ" is considered to divide believers from unbelievers and so divide Christian from not Christian, in the Oxford sense of the word.

But how could we verify what constitutes "perversion of the teachings of Christ"? Well, ask a JW scholar, ask a Mormon scholar, ask a Catholic scholar. Not surprisingly, they all have very clear points of view on this matter. The source I quoted above is just one of many who notes that "The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the essential doctrines", i.e. one that cannot be denied without "perverting the Gospel of Christ", hence denying the "teachings of Christ" rather than "believing or professing them", hence falling outside the definition of Christian, as defined by the Oxford.

The argument that Branch Davidians are Christians because they believe some of the teachings of Christ, doesn't actually fit the Oxford definition. The Oxford does not say what subset of doctrine makes one a Christian, only experts can tell us. Consider the simple reductio ad absurdum: Buddhists are Christians because they believe one should "love one's neighbour as oneself". If a subset of the teachings of Christ suffices to make one a Christian, then everyone is a Christian and the word is meaningless. But the Oxford makes no such error, and nor should we. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said theologians are not a reliable source for categorizing or characterizing the beliefs of other denominations than their own - theology is not a scientific discipline, but a religious one. There is of course any number of catholic or lutheran theologians who would volunteer their opinion that only faithes that follow the nicaean creed are christians - this is of course irrelevant, just like the opinions of sunnis and shiites do not reliably tell us whether the ahmadiyyas are muslims or not. Only historians of religion or sociologists of religion objectively classify religions based on their practices and their histories and their selfidentification. In this case sociolgists of religion agree that JW is best described as a group of Christians holding millenarian and restorationist beliefs. Untill better sources show up or consensus changes the lead stays that way (the order of restorationist, millenarian and christian I don't care about particularly). The "other points of view" you are talking about do not belong in the lead but in a discussion about how other religions view the religion if such a discussion is within the scope of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Maunus, but you don't decide matters, nor does democracy, only sources and policy do.

But thanks for supporting my proposal anyway, doctrinal views do not belong in the lead, so the current text must change.

Thanks also for acknowledging that sociologists can only offer classification not doctrine.

I'm not aware of any views other than classifying JWs as in the Christian tradition, just as we do in the nav bar, so it doesn't really matter whether it's historians or the Kids World Almanac Online that we use to verify the point. Readers might have just a tad more confidence in Beckford and Holden than in the Almanac, though.

I detected an error in your post, though, Maunus, Theology and Sociology are both scientific disciplines. Theology is no more "religious" (whatever that means) than Sociology is "political". But you're entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, it's not relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing that sources and policy decides what to include - Now I can't wait to see you stop filling this talk page with rambling nonsense and actually provide arguments based on either sources or policies - or maybe even both. And Thanks for cotinuing in your snide pseudo-civil tone it is appreciated that at least you try to hide your contempt for other editors and the principle of collaborative editing. On the other hand I think we have been extraordinarily fair in our continuing to attempt dialogue with you. Now get in line with policy: present sources and sound arguments based in policy or go find some other talkpage to assault with your nonsensical opining. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Manus, if "sounding civil" is a bad thing, I'm sure that "sounding uncivil" can't be much better. Let's keep things focused on the issues and principles at hand, rather than individual editors. I've actually agreed with editors who annoyed the smack out of me, and disagreed with very pleasant people. It happens. I think we are all aware that Jehovah's Witnesses think "Christendom" is so off base that it will be destroyed. It's fair to note that they do not think they are part of this condemned group.EGMichaels (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounding civil doesn't mean anything unless ones' comments actually ARE civil - Alastair Haines is not civil, he just tries to sound like he is by being sarcastic and snide. That is what I am calling him out on by expressing my sarcastic "thanks" just like he does. Now, on the issue - in my experience JW's do not refer to "christendom" when they talk about who are condemned but to "false religion" which is all other religion. However they do routinely and exlusively rfer to their faith and way of life as "christianity" and to themselves as christians. But again it is besides the point: reliable sources call them a christian denomination with millenarian and restorationist beliefs. No one has presented any reliable sources to the contrary - only the opinions of catholic theologians. AND even if someone did provide sources that would not invalidate the reliability of the other sources and we would have to discuss how to weight the viewpoints against eachother - not whether one of them should be exluded form the lead. Alastair Haines is demonstrating a complete disinterestedness in policy and a complete vestedness in a silly crusade to defend some theological position.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would catholic theologians not be reliable sources for catholic opinion?
I've read a number of Watchtower books that refer to Christendom as a condemned group.
How is arguing for a neutral inclusion of all reliably sourced views in the body and exclusion of all reliably sourced controversial statements from the lede some kind of crusade?EGMichaels (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic theologians are of course reliable sources for catholic opinion - but catholic opinion is not relevant to how other religions should be classified, just like JW opinion is not relevant to how catholicism should be classified. Catholic opinion may be includable somewhere in the article body, if there is consensus among editors about how it should be weighted against other viewpoints. Alastairs struggle for removing what he sees as "controversial" statements from the lead is failed firstly because he is not in fact arguing just contradicting and because there is no policy that controversial statements should not appear in the lead but only that viewpoints should not be given undue weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, again I think that you are mistaking the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not trying to establish ultimate reality, but rather to document notable and reliable views. Catholics, as "Christians" have as much right to say what they think "Christianity" is as anyone else. If they disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, that's something to be noted -- not to make Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics "wrong" but only "different."EGMichaels (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that wikipedia is about establoishing absolute reality buty that relatively objective viewpoints (such as those made by sociologists according to objective criteria) should be weighted above partial viewpoints. I have explicitly said that all notable viewpoints should be given their due weight, you seem to have failed to notice that rather important detail.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a slight disagreement about what Wikipedia is supposed to do. All we do is document notable and reliable views. At no point do we determine absolutely truth or objective reality. We can document that Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics each think that the other is wrong, but we don't care if either is right, or even both wrong. The only reason we're having such a hard time in discussion is because we don't realize how easy our editing job is supposed to be.EGMichaels (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, once again you provide another rambling reply. You start by falsely attributing to me some admission that I didn't understand your rambling; however, I never suggested that I had trouble interpreting your long-winded response. And you have still failed to supply a neutral definition of Christian that excludes JWs... you did supply the theological opinion of Don H. Howell; however, his opinion that Christian excludes non-trinitarians is invalidated (as a neutral definition for the purposes of this article) because the Catholic Encyclopedia specifics that Unitarians are Christians. You are therefore yet to provide a neutral definition that excludes JWs from the definition of Christian. Additionally, Howell's definition makes no statement about what may be the beliefs of unorthodox Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More rambling insults and continued failure to understand what neutrality means. There is no such thing as a neutral definition. Every point of view is a point of view. No point of view is neutral. The neutral point of view merely documents all point of views without evaluating them.

Can you please stop asking me to provide a self-contradiction. Jeffro asks Alastair to provide "a neutral definition that excludes X". Neutrality cannot exclude. It's like asking for a neutral country at war with Germany in WWII. You got me. I can't give you an answer. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been requested to supply a source for your claim that Christian excludes JWs. You have failed to do so. This indicates that your POV is not based on sourced facts, but on theological opinions. The one theological opinion you cited addresses the beliefs of orthodox Christians, and is not a definition of Christian. You misdirect the issue by stating that a definition can't be neutral. However, any definition for Christian (without qualifications such as 'orthodox') must be testable, and by all testable definitions of Christian that have been provided, JWs satisfy the definition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I request you cease your arrogant tone, and stop sidetracking discussion, by putting words in my mouth and making false allegations. Address the topic, not other editors. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look guys, I stumbled on this while countering vandalism, and I suggest all members of this rather heated discussion take a break. Please, Wikipedia talk pages are not for any flame or edit wars etc. Please consider each others' feelings and show respect. Come back later, maybe, and regroup. Thank you, your time is appreciated on improving articles. Deagle_AP (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I have not side-tracked at all. You have repeatedly asserted that JWs are not Christian, and you have been requested to provide sources for that. You have also made the entirely unsourced (and probably unverifiable) claim that "30,000 denominations" say JWs aren't Christian, and imply that the reason all of them do so is because JWs deny that Christ is God. However, the largest Christian religion on the planet, the (Trinitarian) Roman Catholic Church, states that Unitarians are Christian. So either you must have some other basis for your claim that JWs are not Christian, or you are simply asserting your own theological opinion, which has exactly equal weight to the JWs' theological opinion that all other religions are not Christian—that is to say, none. Therefore, I have requested that you provide a sourced definition that supports your assertion that JWs are not Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary edit break 2

I maintain that a definition by itself is not relevant (but SYNTH) - what would be relevant is a reliable source that applies such a definition to the JWs. That is a reliable objective source that explicitly states that Jehovahø's witneses are not christian because of x.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. That is is why I have repeatedly requested that Alastair provide a "sourced definition" to support his theological opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm being asked for something that's possible, you're most welcome Jeffro.

"Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian because they do not believe that Jesus is fully God." P. Edmund Adam, Relationship with Jesus, (Xulon Press, 2006), p. 60.

With all due respect to Mr Adam, though, he's only a reliable secondary source of the standard non-Mormon, non-JW Christian point of view.

Regarding denominations, there are more than 30,000 Christian denominations according to David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, (Oxford University Press, 2001). There are issues regarding counting. Barrett's methodology views Australian Anglicans as separate to the Church of England and Episcopal denominations in the US. For some purposes, the number of denominations should be reduced. Anyway, all I've been stating, is that the non-JW Christian point of view is notable. If there were only 30 denominations, it would still be that wouldn't it?

There is such a massive literature regarding the divinity of Jesus as an essential Christian doctrine, extending over 1,700 years, that I was surprised you really wanted me to verify it in detail. I would have thought you were well aware of it. I thought your argument was that those hundreds of thousands of sources could be dismissed on the grounds of being "superstition not science" or "biased". Absolutely undoubtedly thousands of them are exactly that, but most of them are sober interpretation of the "precepts and doctrines of Christ and his apostles." There are endless reliable sources of the academic Christian point of view that Christ and his apostles taught his divinity. Christians worship Christ, they don't merely admire him. Christianity is a religion.

Does that help at all? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the statement from Edmund Adam. Of course, without any clear definition to support his claim (as you could presumably find in the documented official positions of the '30,000 denominations' you claim hold such a view), Adam's comment is simply an ad hominem attack contradicted by the position given in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Incidentally, Barrett includes Jehovah's Witnesses among the 30,000 denominations defined as Christian in the World Christian Encyclopedia. It is all well and good for a particular religion to insist that its members accept the Trinity, however as demonstrated by the Catholic encyclopedia, it is not a requirement they extend to members of other Christian religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep at this one - We all know that there are persons and theologians who think that JW are not Christian. What we should discuss is how to assign due weight to this POV. The way to do this is by seeing how objective, neutral reliable (yes this means secular) sources approach the question. Not to see how partisans from either camp do.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, thanks for those words.

One issue you and I still need to work on is the "bias" issue.

When modern Christian writers exclude JWs from doctrinal Christianity, there's nothing partisan about it. They reject Russell on the same grounds that the Nicene Creed rejected Arius. If a new religion, based on the New Testament started in 2050, and claimed the NT did not assert the divinity of Jesus, that group would be excluded also, simply by consistent application of an interpretation of the Bible that is now 1,700 years old.

I gave a source that could be repeated endlessly. It is not so much that mainstream Christians reject non-Trititarianism, it is much more true to say that mainstream Christianity preaches "Jesus is Lord, because he is God". Mainstream Christianity would probably better be described as believing "denying Jesus divinity goes beyond orthodoxy to the point of heterodoxy".

This belief is not proclaimed by fiat. It is argued as an interpretation of the New Testament, which is submitted as a falsifiable hypothesis. Both Jews and Muslims agree that the New Testament claims Jesus to be God, which is why both those faiths reject Christianity. "Uninvolved parties" do not have to be secular. However, there are a lot of atheist biblical scholars, as well. I'll try to find one for you, who asserts the New Testament teaches Jesus divinity.

Even once I've found that source, though, because we use the word "Christian" to classify JWs, the views of others who call themselves Christian enter the picture: self-identification and all that. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the best I can do for now.

"The doctrine of the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ is on any account central to the entire Christian message and crucial therefore for any reinterpretation of it."

— John A. T. Robinson (see also secular theology), Honest to God, SCM classics, (Hymns Ancient & Modern, 2001), p. 41.

Some background: "Every would-be theologian rushed into print to denounce this book. Calls were issued for Bishop Robinson's resignation or for him to be deposed for heresy."[13]

Here is someone from the "inside" risking everything by publishing "heresy". He reinterprets the Bible and Christian theology in radical ways, noting in advance the centrality of the doctrines he will challenge.

A better response from me towards your quest for "unbiased" sources is to point out that we all have biases, and the ones we are unaware of are the most dangerous of all. That's why WP:NPOV doesn't ask for "unbiased" sources. In fact, it states:

"A biased statement violates this policy [NPOV] when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view."

So, all I have to source is Christian views of "what Christianity is" from outside the JWs. If readers want to discount those as biased, they are perfectly welcome to do so. But NPOV says it is "non-negotiable" that all significant POVs be represented.

What I will add is, fringe definitions of "what Christianity is" are not allowed undue weight. So, JAT Robinson's heretical secular theology is inadmissable as representative of mainstream Christianity. However, even he makes clear what the historical standard of theology has been, and it's a standard that was established and followed before ever Russell started his movement. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair -- one caveat... although Muslims may reject the NT because of the divinity issue, Jews reject it on other grounds: 1) it rejects Jews as the covenant people, 2) it rejects the Torah, 3) it promotes a dead Messiah, etc... While all or none of these points may actually be true, that does appear to be the basis for the rejection. It's much the same as Christian rejection of JW beliefs. The idea is something like: "these are our self defined beliefs; you don't fit that category; therefore you aren't part of our belief group." On an aside, for the divinity issue... Jews actually mistakenly define Christian belief as shittuf, or partnership -- that is, they believe that Christians teach Jesus is a partner with God. They actually ACCEPT Christianity as permissible for Gentiles on those terms! You should quickly recognize that what Jews THINK Christians believe is by (Christian) definition "Arianism." And so now for the irony: Jews THINK Christians believe Jehovah's Witness doctrines! How's THAT for mixing terms? If you asked a Rabbi to describe Christian beliefs, they would describe Jehovah's Witness beliefs. So, by JEWISH definitions "Christian" does not apply to "Trinitarians" but instead to "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Secular definitions would lump Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses in the same group, while Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses would not, and while Jews would think Jehovah's Witness doctrines were the Christian ones, and have no idea what the Christian doctrines actually were. Gotta love religion.EGMichaels (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ironically (and irrelevantly), JWs actually believe the NT to reinforce the concept of the Jews as the chosen people. JWs believe that Jesus (and later Paul) taught that the entire heavenly class of "kings and priests" should have been literal Jews, but that the privilege was only extended to others because of insufficient numbers of Jewish adherents to Christianity. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, very little could be irrelevant in my opinion. There's so much I don't know about JWs, that every little piece is helpful. Many readers will be in exactly the same position as me.

EGM, thanks for teaching me some new stuff regarding Judaism also. Mind you, I've never suggested Jewish rejection of Christianity is exclusively on the grounds of the claim to his divinity. All I'm pointing out is Jews have no bias in favour of Christianity, nor Muslims, and both perceive Christian teaching to go beyond simple monotheism, because of Christian views about Jesus.

Another excellent unbiased source would be the JWs themselves. One of the errors JWs perceive among churches that claim the name Christian, but not the JW version, is precisely the heretical worship of Jesus and illogical doctrine of the Trinity.

Anyway, if mainstream Christianity claims that the divinity of Jesus is central, that's a source. We can also get Jewish, Muslim and JW sources that state that is the view of mainstream Christianity, with all of them condemning that view.

What I'd like to see is a secular source that denies that mainstream Christianity considers the divinity of Jesus to be doctrinally definitive of the bounds of orthodoxy. I rather doubt one could be found. Prove me wrong! Alastair Haines (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing stance

Having reread and pondered EGMichaels calm explanations of Alastairs reasoning I have hade to change my stance. If what Alastair and EGM is suggesting is that we word the lead in such a way that we do not state that "JW is X" but rather that we circumvent the question by describing their history and beliefs - in a way similar to how Ahmadiya does not explicitly define the Ahmadiya denomination as either Islam or not Islam - then I think it may be possible and I could even support that. For the record I think I would have probably realized this earlier if it had not been for Alastairs obfuscating, confrontational, provocative and arrogant argumentation style - which is clearly counterproductive. EGM however, managed in a calm and civil manner managed to translate his tirades into sound argumentation which (if I have understood it correct) convinced me that it is not necessarily a bad idea to avoid "controversial" claims in the lead. I apologize for letting my feelings get the better of me, and reacting so strongly to the tone of Alastairs argument rather than the message. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the tone of the posts I was replying to Maunus. I'm used to people being confrontational, so fortunately it doesn't affect me. For my part, I guessed you were interacting with perceptions rather than the topic, and took no offense. You might want to consider striking your inaccurate description of my posts. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me, you are addressing another editor (me) rather than the topic, and that doesn't belong here. Some may think your comments regarding me provocative, obfuscating discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you consider changing your behaviour so that my characterization is no longer accurate I will consider striking it.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. Sometimes two people rub each other in such a way that they have trouble agreeing. Not sure that's anyone's fault, but if we can all work out something we're okay with, that's great :-). EGMichaels (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that the current lede be set in stone, but I feel that its current form is quite good. If you intend to change it, I expect your modifications to be of exceptional quality. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For the moment I figured most folks wouldn't object to a tiny tweak so that the lede quotes the wording in one of its sources. At issue is less whether Jehovah's Witnesses are "Christian" (which they consider themselves to be) or some kind of religious denomination (which they are), but rather the phrase "Christian denomination." Those two words put together probably wouldn't sit well with all mainstream Christians or all Jehovah's Witnesses either. They do believe they are exceptional and not just one of the crowd. I figured while we're talking that little tweak wouldn't be too controversial.EGMichaels (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of WP:OR and opinions about what may or may not "sit well", Wikipedia editors should stick with verifiable refs. JW publications have quoted reliable sources which refer to them as a Christian denomination, demonstrating that both Witnesses and non-Witnesses accept the term as neutral. For numerous examples, see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 45#Denomination.
See also the Austrian Times and ReligiousTolerance.org.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, exactly how is it OR to quote one of the sources? I'm not trying to get the lede to say they are NOT a Christian denomination (since there are sources that say they are), but rather to word it so that it doesn't INSIST they are a Christian denomination (since there are sources that say they are not). "Christian-based religious movement" is the wording of one of the refs and does not contradict EITHER position (that it is a Christian denomination or that it is not).

Here's the idea:

If you can find any notable and reliable source that says they are not a Christian denomination, put it in the body.
If you can find any notable and reliable source that says they are a Christian denomination, put it in the body.
If you can find any notable and reliable source that challenges either position (i.e. it is not a universal view), remove it from the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's original research to imagine some polling about what may or may not "sit well" with some constituency. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved next paragraph from User Talk to here.

Tam, I didn't contradict the sourced ref. I QUOTED the sourced ref. I figured quoting the ref was the simplest compromise while we worked on the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, one ref says JWs are "Christian-based", and that one cited ref is not the one immediately following EGMichaels's recent edit. By contrast, we could cite hundreds that say JWs are Christian (period). We don't ignore that just because there may exist (to quote previous editor) "any" disagreement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, while your sources do use the term "denomination" they most often do not use the compound "Christian denomination." I have a reference to American "denominations" which include Judaism and Buddhism and Islam. Yes, these are "denominations" but they are not "Christian denominations." Your preponderance of refs is not really a fair presentation of the normative stance of either faith. It gives the mistaken impression that Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves in the same faith community as Baptists and Pentecostals. While some may, that's not the normal stance. Yes, they absolutely ARE a "denomination" and they absolutely call themselves "Christian." But "Christian denomination" gives an impression of unity among peers that is overstated at best, and mistated at worst. All of this belongs in the body, while contested matters should be kept out of the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No. EGMichaels is considering the term "Christian denomination" from the POV of those "Christians" who refuse to recognize JWs' Christianity. Secular refs have absolutely no compunctions about refering to Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination".
See The New York Times. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, I'm considering the term "Christian denomination" from the POV of both Jehovah's Witnesses AND Trinitarian Christians. Neither regard the other to be members of the "saved" group (i.e. they do not consider each other members of the same covenantal body). Secular refs have no problem lumping them togeher. I'm a Jew, and JEWISH refs have no problem lumping them all together. I really don't care who is right or a "true" Christian. It's not my group. I only care that Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarian Christians will fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity of their own communion. That's fair, and should be fairly noted for both sides in the body, with NEITHER "Christian" NOR "non-Christian" presumed in the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia also is a "secular reference". Thus, Wikipedia can use generic language and need not be hypersensitive about the savedness or exclusivity (or bigotry) of a particular constituency. Wikipedia can surely use a standard similar to that of The New York Times. --AuthorityTam (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the New York Times as a positive reference. Tam, this is specious. I've known Baptists who insisted they were "Catholic" and I agreed with their reasons. However, the normative use of the term is no longer "universal generic Christian" but rather a member of a particular religious heirarchical organization. The term "Christian" without some kind of qualifier connotes a Trinitarian. Jehovah's Witnesses DO want to be considered "Christian" but do NOT want to be considered Trinitarians, nor peers with Baptists and Pentecostals. Further, the designation is contested by those who define "Christian" in different ways. Surely a Jehovah's Witness will not regard the Pope OR Billy Graham as "true" Christians. This is simply something to be noted. I really don't care WHO owns the word. As far as I'm concerned they are all welcome to it. However, since BOTH Trinitarians AND Jehovah's Witnesses claim exclusive use of the term in reference to each other, we editors should not plead ignorance. We are agnostics on the answer, but not on the question.EGMichaels (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The NYT and other secular reliable references are (we imagine) neither positive nor negative—they are secular and RELIABLE. Wikipedia wouldn't disallow "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian [religion]" unless a secular reliable source contradicted the statement. An editor who seeks to disqualify the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian [religion]" should stop pontificating and start digging up something which he can pretend meets the criteria of WP:SOURCES.
Incidentally, "Christian" simply means 'evocative of Christ'. While it seems quite unlikely that a secular dictionary would define Christianity as inseparable from Trinitarianism, still EGMichaels is welcome to submit an example of one to support his claim. Even then, if 200 refs say JWs are Christian and two refs say otherwise, the two do not hold sway.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, I'm not sure you understand the stance I'm taking. It's far less ambitious than what you appear to ascribe to me. I am not saying that Trinitarians are or are not Christians. I'm saying that they say they are, and (at least every JW source I've read in the past) says they are not. Rather, they are "Christendom". Neither am I saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are or are not Christians. I'm saying that they say they are, and a number of Trinitarians say they are not.

In other words, BOTH sides say they are "Christians" and NEITHER side wants to be confused with the other.

Well, that's fair. It should be noted, and any contradictory statements should be moved from the lede into the body.

Please note that this position does not change if Jehovah's Witnesses are true, false, or that both they and Trinitarians are false and Mormonism true. I'm MERELY noting that they each claim to be "Christian" and that each claim to be different.EGMichaels (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any sources of major denominations' official positions and reasons for JWs being not Christian?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, I'm not sure why you keep asking this. This is a well known issue. I've already noted that the Southern Baptist Convention regards Jehovah's Witness theology as "unchristian" [14]. Seriously -- were you really unaware that Trinitarians often regard non-Trinitarians to not represent their religion? I've never said that ALL Trinitarian groups regard ALL non-Trinitarians as non-Christian. That's a whopper. But it's even more of a whopper to say the opposite.

The fact is (and this is a fact) that Trinitarian beliefs are very important to Trinitarians, and they often use this as the boundary of belief. That was the whole purpose of the Nicene Creed.

Even Watchtower.org cites Catholic and Greek Orthodox sources that say the Trinity is the central doctrine of Christianity [15]. That same publication calls Trinitarianism a "deviation from pure Christianity" [16] and an apostacy from Satan. That same publication argues that there is a difference between Christianity and Christendom, with Christendom dishonoring God, murdering each other, and being turned over to violence, concluding that Christendom are NOT Jesus' disciples: "Soon, when God brings this present wicked system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines.—Matthew 24:14, 34; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21" and "By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom. Instead, we can look forward to God's favor when this system ends: "The world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever."—1 John 2:17" [17].

Jeffro, please understand that I have no interest in who is "right" here. Neither does Wikipedia. "Christian" is not some kind of compliment. It is merely a term that groups use to define themselves.

The Southern Baptist Convention officially regards themselves as "Christian" and Jehovah's Witnesses as "unchristian."
The Roman Catholic Church regards belief in the Trinity the central Christian doctrine (as cited in the Jehovah's Witness booklet).
The Greek Orthodox Church regards belief in the Trinity the central Christian doctrine (as cited in the Jehovah's Witness booklet).
Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish between "Christians" and "Christendom", with "Christians" worshipping Jehovah alone and "Christendom" worshipping the Trinity, as apostates of Satan, to be destroyed by God.

Wikipedia does not CARE who is "right." The only matter of note is only that these groups are "different" and that they contest use of the term for each other. We should at least recognize this in the article, no? And we should word the lede so that it does not contradict this recognition, no?EGMichaels (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I have previously stated, I am aware that it doesn't matter which religious groups are right, and I have specifically stated that classification of any of them has no bearing on them being right, wrong, good, bad, or any other value judgement. Additionally, I have previously specifically highlighted that the POVs of JWs and other religions about each other don't of themselves establish that either is not Christian.

However, Alastair has persistently claimed that Christian denominations say JWs aren't Christian on the basis that JWs don't accept the Trinity. Despite that, he neglected to provide any official statements to suggest there was actually such categorical dismissal of JWs as a Christian group. I therefore appreciate that you have made some effort in this regard, though only one of the (~~unsourced~~ [didn't notice PDF in first read of diff]) statements you've provided specifically states that either JWs or nontrintiarians aren't Christian. Further, whilst the Catholic Church teaches its members that they are required to accept the Trinity doctrine, the Catholic Church's official encyclopedia also acknowledges that Unitarians are Christians. So because there is no consensus even among Trinitarians about whether nontrinitarians are also Christian (and the major Trinitarian denomination says nontrinitarians are Christian), then such a definition fails as a reliable measure for the term. Additionally, it seems to be the JW article in particular, rather than nontrinitarianism in general, that receives the most flack about being 'unchristian'.

Given that 1) the controversy here seems to be about JWs being nontrinitarian, 2) JWs' other fundamental beliefs about Jesus are inextricably Christian, and 3) the major Trinitarian denomination states that Unitarians are Christians, then there should be no problem with the article using the term nontrinitarian to qualify 'Christian' in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro -- although I do not agree with all of your reasons, I do think that "nontrinitarian" is an acceptable modifier to "Christian."

Generally when you have two groups using the same name, the mainstream group should be unmodified and the smaller group modified. Thus "Messianic Judaism" and "Judaism" or "Free Will Baptists" and "Baptists". We could certainly do the same for "nontrinitarian Christian" and "Christian."

A sanity check is usually sufficient to double check. Thus "Jews disagree with Rabbinics" does not make sense, while "Jews disagree with Messianics" does. And "Christians disagree with Trinitarians" would be confusing but "Christians disagree with non-Trinitarians" would not.

When something is as heavily contested as this topic, perhaps that last sentence wouldn't be useful for the present article, but it at least would be decipherable.

That said, I'm fine with "nontrinitarian Christian" as a useful disambiguation.EGMichaels (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While "Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarian Christian [whatever]" seems perfectly acceptable, the assertion "Christians disagree with non-Trinitarians" is problematic. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Denomination

Emphasis added to the following quotes...

USA Today, June 18, 2002, "The next time some Jehovah’s Witnesses interrupt your dinner, you might consider thanking them. In gritty dedication to their religious principles, this out-of-the-mainstream denomination of scarcely 1 million members [in the United States] has probably done more than any other institution to secure freedom of speech for individual Americans... For the Witnesses, going to the high court is a familiar routine.” (as quoted in Awake!, January 8, 2003, p 10)
Malawi Congress Party resolution, September 1967, "[We] recommend strongly that the Jehovah’s Witnesses denomination be declared illegal in this country.” (as quoted in 1999 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 178)
La Stampa newspaper, Italy, 'Jehovah’s Witnesses are the second-largest denomination in Italy, now numbering over 200,000' (as cited by Awake!, February 22, 1995, page 31)
Houston Post, quoting Baptist clergyman John McDonald, who represents the group in Houston, Texas, “said his group would approach each candidate for an interview and support the ones believed to best represent its creed” in upcoming local elections. “He said there are 800 persons and churches on his [Moral Majority] mailing list, including just about every denomination but Jehovah’s Witnesses,” reports the Post. (as cited by Awake!, March 8, 1981, page 29)
Windsor Star, Canadian newspaper, an article by Maurice Jefferies from Ottawa on the results of the then latest Canadian Census (1961). It agreed with the newspaper headline, which read, “Jehovah’s Witnesses Fastest in Growth.” The brief note said: “CENSUS NOTE: The latest report on religious denominations shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses make up the fastest-growing denomination in Canada. They doubled in numbers from 34,596 to 68,018 in the last decade.” (as cited by 1979 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 161)
Awake!, March 22, 1982, page 29, "Lisbon’s influential daily newspaper Diário de Notícias recently published results of a survey on the subject of religion in Portuguese life. The article was subtitled “Jehovah’s Witnesses: the Second Most Known Religion.” It pointed out that, although Catholicism is professed by the majority of Portuguese by far, Jehovah’s Witnesses make up the next largest group of worshipers, as compared to Judaism or Protestants as a whole.
JW-Media.org press release, "In his expert opinion submitted to the Golovinsky Court in 1998, Professor Bryan R. Wilson of Oxford, England, comments that it is strange to take issue with the fact "that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion." He adds: "This is a very strange objection to make against any denomination adhering to the teachings of Jesus, since the claim to be the only true religion is a general claim of Christianity... In making this claim, Jehovah's Witnesses do no more than is the accepted teaching of most Christian churches and movements."[footnote]Sworn Expert Opinion, Bryan Ronald Wilson, November 9, 1998, p 4."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear they can be called a 'denomination' (which is why it was the word I used in the first place). However, I think it might be more agreeable to change it to 'religious organization'. Does anyone disagree with the specific term religious organization (regardless of whether they think other terms are valid)?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Jeffro77 here. Yes, they CAN be called a denomination, just as they CAN be called a religion, or they CAN be called a cult, or they CAN be called the one true faith. Anything that CAN be reliably and notably sourced SHOULD be in the body of the article. However, anything that can be notably and reliably CONTESTED shouldn't be in the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with everyone. Let's turn Jeffro's suggestion into a proposal. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

^ "Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection". Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1997. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
^ "To all Bodies of Elders in the United States". WTBS. 1995-08-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
^ n/a (1977). Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 138. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Let Us ABHOR What Is Wicked". The Watchtower: 27–29. 1997-01-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1] "Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection". Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1997. Retrieved 2010-03-13.

[2] "To all Bodies of Elders in the United States". WTBS. 1995-08-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13.

[3] /a (1977). Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 138. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[4] "Let Us ABHOR What Is Wicked". The Watchtower: 27–29. 1997-01-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]